From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: should we prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 22:19:52 +0200 Message-ID: <555654E8.1030806@dachary.org> References: <55362279.5060105@dachary.org> <5555F85B.3000407@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PWPXnObhlQoisToAdqgoJ6ndcqafpBFlD" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:36036 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934755AbbEOUTz (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 May 2015 16:19:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: Ceph Development , "Shu, Xinxin" , dzafman@redhat.com, sjust@redhat.com This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --PWPXnObhlQoisToAdqgoJ6ndcqafpBFlD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 15/05/2015 21:05, Sage Weil wrote: > On Fri, 15 May 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Sage, >> >> On 21/04/2015 17:52, Sage Weil wrote: >>> The bulk of it is ceph-objectstore-tool, which is important to get in= to a=20 >>> release, IMO. David, are these being tested in the firefly thrashing= =20 >>> tests yet? >>> >>> The only other one I'm worried about is >>> >>> 6fd3dfa osd: do not ignore deleted pgs on startup >>> >>> Sam, I assume the recent hammer upgrade issue is would bite firefly f= olks=20 >>> who upgrade too? >> >> A backport of "OSD::load_pgs: we need to handle the case where an upgr= ade from earlier versions which ignored non-existent pgs resurrects a pg = with a prehistoric osdmap" http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11429 found at = https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 has been successfully tested on fi= refly at http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-05-13_00:01:26-rados-firefly-b= ackports---basic-multi/ and in a rados suite run that completed today htt= p://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11090#rados. >> >> Provided https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/4556 is merged, do you thin= k we should prepare to release firefly v0.80.10 ? >=20 > As Yehuda mentioned the other open issue is the rgw multipart corruptio= n. =20 > I'm guessing we want to include that? Yes, we will include and test the http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11622 an= d http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11604 backports. Cheers >=20 > sage >=20 >> >> Cheers >> >>> >>> sage >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Sage, >>>> >>>> The firefly branch has a number of fixes ( http://tracker.ceph.com/i= ssues/11090#Release-information ) and has been used for upgrade tests in = the past few weeks. A few other issues have been backported since and are= being tested in the integration branch ( http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/= 11090#teuthology-run-commitb91bbb434e6363a99a632cf3841f70f1f2549f79-integ= ration-branch-april-2015 ).=20 >>>> >>>> Do you think these changes deserve a firefly v0.80.10 release ? Shou= ld we ask each lead for their approval ? Or is it better to keep backport= ing what needs to be and wait a few weeks ? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> --=20 >>>> Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>> >> >> --=20 >> Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --PWPXnObhlQoisToAdqgoJ6ndcqafpBFlD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlVWVOgACgkQ8dLMyEl6F21QjwCeNXH2ZXezX26Rsi/WiNQSGIIE uqQAnjXpYbqtcb2i41dNMT7MVE7GZzSU =kZhW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PWPXnObhlQoisToAdqgoJ6ndcqafpBFlD--