* Re: Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status
2017-02-28 22:09 Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status Yuri Weinstein
@ 2017-02-28 22:41 ` Yuri Weinstein
2017-02-28 23:08 ` Josh Durgin
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Yuri Weinstein @ 2017-02-28 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Development, Ceph, Nathan Cutler, Weil, Sage, Durgin, Josh,
Dillaman, Jason, Ilya Dryomov, Gregory Farnum, John Spray,
Sadeh-Weinraub, Yehuda, gmeno@redhat.com
Added ceph-ansible to the list of suites.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-92
>
> The following suites were in scope of this point release validation:
>
> rados (subset 35/50 228 jobs)
> rbd
> rgw
> fs
> krbd
> kcephfs
> knfs
> rest
> hadoop
> samba
> ceph-deploy
> ceph-disk
> upgrade/client-upgrade
> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel)
> upgrade/jewel-x/point-to-point-x
> powercycle
>
> (please let me know if any suites are missing from this ^ list)
>
> ==============================
> (overall pretty clean validation cycle, kudos to @Nathan and the
> backporting team !)
>
> Issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089 resulted in several
> failures, but is infrastructure related.
>
> Issues requiring approval/decision:
>
> rados - one job failed, http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, need Josh approval
>
> krbd - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17221, need Ilya's approval/fix
>
> samba- http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19101, need John's approval/fix
>
> upgrade/client-upgrade - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19080, need
> Jason, Nathan approval/and or backport
>
> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, can
> be approved for release, Sage?
>
> Thx
> YuriW
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status
2017-02-28 22:09 Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status Yuri Weinstein
2017-02-28 22:41 ` Yuri Weinstein
@ 2017-02-28 23:08 ` Josh Durgin
2017-03-01 0:39 ` Sage Weil
2017-03-01 16:46 ` Ilya Dryomov
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Josh Durgin @ 2017-02-28 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuri Weinstein, Development, Ceph, Nathan Cutler, Weil, Sage,
Dillaman, Jason, Ilya Dryomov, Gregory Farnum, John Spray,
Sadeh-Weinraub, Yehuda, gmeno@redhat.com
On 02/28/2017 02:09 PM, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> rados - one job failed, http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, need Josh approval
Looks good. You can remove that failed test from the suite - dumpling is
no longer relevant.
Josh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status
2017-02-28 22:09 Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status Yuri Weinstein
2017-02-28 22:41 ` Yuri Weinstein
2017-02-28 23:08 ` Josh Durgin
@ 2017-03-01 0:39 ` Sage Weil
2017-03-01 2:25 ` Jason Dillaman
2017-03-01 15:54 ` Nathan Cutler
2017-03-01 16:46 ` Ilya Dryomov
3 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Sage Weil @ 2017-03-01 0:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuri Weinstein
Cc: Development, Ceph, Nathan Cutler, Durgin, Josh, Dillaman, Jason,
Ilya Dryomov, Gregory Farnum, John Spray, Sadeh-Weinraub, Yehuda,
gmeno@redhat.com
On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-92
>
> The following suites were in scope of this point release validation:
>
> rados (subset 35/50 228 jobs)
> rbd
> rgw
> fs
> krbd
> kcephfs
> knfs
> rest
> hadoop
> samba
> ceph-deploy
> ceph-disk
> upgrade/client-upgrade
> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel)
> upgrade/jewel-x/point-to-point-x
> powercycle
>
> (please let me know if any suites are missing from this ^ list)
>
> ==============================
> (overall pretty clean validation cycle, kudos to @Nathan and the
> backporting team !)
>
> Issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089 resulted in several
> failures, but is infrastructure related.
>
> Issues requiring approval/decision:
>
> rados - one job failed, http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, need Josh approval
>
> krbd - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17221, need Ilya's approval/fix
>
> samba- http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19101, need John's approval/fix
>
> upgrade/client-upgrade - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19080, need
> Jason, Nathan approval/and or backport
>
> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, can
> be approved for release, Sage?
If you mean it's just hte xenial nodes failing on the package install,
yeah, ignore those failures!
sage
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status
2017-03-01 0:39 ` Sage Weil
@ 2017-03-01 2:25 ` Jason Dillaman
2017-03-01 15:54 ` Nathan Cutler
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jason Dillaman @ 2017-03-01 2:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil
Cc: Yuri Weinstein, Development, Ceph, Nathan Cutler, Durgin, Josh,
Ilya Dryomov, Gregory Farnum, John Spray, Sadeh-Weinraub, Yehuda,
gmeno@redhat.com
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Yuri Weinstein wrote:
>> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-92
>>
>> The following suites were in scope of this point release validation:
>>
>> rados (subset 35/50 228 jobs)
>> rbd
>> rgw
>> fs
>> krbd
>> kcephfs
>> knfs
>> rest
>> hadoop
>> samba
>> ceph-deploy
>> ceph-disk
>> upgrade/client-upgrade
>> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel)
>> upgrade/jewel-x/point-to-point-x
>> powercycle
>>
>> (please let me know if any suites are missing from this ^ list)
>>
>> ==============================
>> (overall pretty clean validation cycle, kudos to @Nathan and the
>> backporting team !)
>>
>> Issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089 resulted in several
>> failures, but is infrastructure related.
>>
>> Issues requiring approval/decision:
>>
>> rados - one job failed, http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, need Josh approval
>>
>> krbd - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17221, need Ilya's approval/fix
>>
>> samba- http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19101, need John's approval/fix
>>
>> upgrade/client-upgrade - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19080, need
>> Jason, Nathan approval/and or backport
Ignore -- it's not worth the effort to fix the test since we won't be
cutting a new Infernalis build.
>> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, can
>> be approved for release, Sage?
>
> If you mean it's just hte xenial nodes failing on the package install,
> yeah, ignore those failures!
>
> sage
--
Jason
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status
2017-03-01 0:39 ` Sage Weil
2017-03-01 2:25 ` Jason Dillaman
@ 2017-03-01 15:54 ` Nathan Cutler
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Cutler @ 2017-03-01 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sage Weil, Yuri Weinstein
Cc: Development, Ceph, Durgin, Josh, Dillaman, Jason, Ilya Dryomov,
Gregory Farnum, John Spray, Sadeh-Weinraub, Yehuda,
gmeno@redhat.com, David Galloway
>> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel) - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, can
>> be approved for release, Sage?
>
> If you mean it's just hte xenial nodes failing on the package install,
> yeah, ignore those failures!
No, #18089 is a different problem - the subject line captures it
reasonably well: "No way to prevent Chacra from deleting builds, breaks
a number of upgrade tests". David Galloway is working on it.
Nathan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status
2017-02-28 22:09 Jewel 10.2.6 QE validation status Yuri Weinstein
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-03-01 0:39 ` Sage Weil
@ 2017-03-01 16:46 ` Ilya Dryomov
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ilya Dryomov @ 2017-03-01 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuri Weinstein
Cc: Development, Ceph, Nathan Cutler, Weil, Sage, Durgin, Josh,
Dillaman, Jason, Gregory Farnum, John Spray,
Sadeh-Weinraub, Yehuda, gmeno@redhat.com
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Yuri Weinstein <yweinste@redhat.com> wrote:
> Detailed summary of the QE Validation can be found here
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17851#note-92
>
> The following suites were in scope of this point release validation:
>
> rados (subset 35/50 228 jobs)
> rbd
> rgw
> fs
> krbd
> kcephfs
> knfs
> rest
> hadoop
> samba
> ceph-deploy
> ceph-disk
> upgrade/client-upgrade
> upgrade/hammer-x (jewel)
> upgrade/jewel-x/point-to-point-x
> powercycle
>
> (please let me know if any suites are missing from this ^ list)
>
> ==============================
> (overall pretty clean validation cycle, kudos to @Nathan and the
> backporting team !)
>
> Issue http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089 resulted in several
> failures, but is infrastructure related.
>
> Issues requiring approval/decision:
>
> rados - one job failed, http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/18089, need Josh approval
>
> krbd - http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17221, need Ilya's approval/fix
Approved.
Thanks,
Ilya
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread