From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: hammer/firefly backports upgrade suite Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 23:34:08 +0200 Message-ID: <55B946D0.3070308@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NuNSpUMjnRw1iVnFv9B9sfeobb4w8sroA" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:58434 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754083AbbG2VeN (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:34:13 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Abhishek L , Nathan Cutler Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --NuNSpUMjnRw1iVnFv9B9sfeobb4w8sroA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nathan & Abhishek, It turns out the mistake was to use upgrade/firefly-x and upgrade/hammer-= x instead of upgrade/firelfy and upgrade/hammer. When -c hammer-backports= or -c firefly-backports is given to teuthology-suite, it will upgrade to= this version, from older versions of the same stable branch. I've updated: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#upgrade http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11990#upgrade whith the fix and they are running (using the OpenStack cluster though, t= here may be issues with the firefly upgrade suite but the hammer upgrade = suite must run fine, it has run at http://ceph.aevoo.fr:8081/ enough time= s to suggest there are no OpenStack specific issues). Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --NuNSpUMjnRw1iVnFv9B9sfeobb4w8sroA 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) iEYEARECAAYFAlW5RtAACgkQ8dLMyEl6F20niwCghScXVwZdGmycbb4lcjFhT5SU UYAAn2VxekKKcWSGOPQUIBUFH2ZSHGRK =3VfW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NuNSpUMjnRw1iVnFv9B9sfeobb4w8sroA--