From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: Re: verifying rpm packages for v0.80.11 Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:50:20 +0200 Message-ID: <55E68E1C.7040105@dachary.org> References: <55E68D6F.5050506@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QTu92KGgRllMp410OKQD8vmTJhEWNAM10" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:47937 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750743AbbIBFuY (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:50:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <55E68D6F.5050506@dachary.org> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nathan Cutler Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --QTu92KGgRllMp410OKQD8vmTJhEWNAM10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5394 On 02/09/2015 07:47, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Nathan, >=20 > In order to verify that the ceph.spec.in change do not introduce a regr= ession in v0.80.11, I scheduled an upgrade/firefly suite on CentOS 6 ( ht= tp://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#upgrade) and a ceph-deploy suite on al= l supported distributions (because we did not do it before http://tracker= =2Eceph.com/issues/11644#ceph-deploy).=20 >=20 > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5217 > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5224 > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5225 >=20 > Cheers >=20 --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --QTu92KGgRllMp410OKQD8vmTJhEWNAM10 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) iEYEARECAAYFAlXmjhwACgkQ8dLMyEl6F23GQQCfTCs7h0bHuC6MPy84c/PRYSDP l4AAn05YYKIJEm6teaG7jnWbwPWQVjhL =przm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QTu92KGgRllMp410OKQD8vmTJhEWNAM10--