Re: rgw and the next giant release

[Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yehuda@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loic Dachary" <loic@dachary.org>
> To: "Yehuda Sadeh" <yehuda@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Ceph Development" <ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:05:24 AM
> Subject: rgw and the next giant release
> 
> Hi Yehuda,
> 
> The rgw teuthology suite for the next giant release as found in
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/commits/giant-backports came back (see
> http://pulpito.ceph.com/loic-2015-02-02_23:56:11-rgw-giant-backports---basic-multi)
> with one environmental error
> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10501#teuthology-run-6b08a729540c61f3c8b15c5a3ce9382634bf800c-february-2015.
> 
> Do you think it is ready for QE to start their own round of testing ?

Yes.

Thanks,
Yehuda

> 
> Note that the integration branch now contains all the rgw pull requests
> targeting giant as listed here:
> 
> http://workbench.dachary.org/ceph/ceph-backports/wikis/giant#included-and-tested-in-integration-branch
> 
> Which includes cherry picks I did for the following as you suggested:
> 
>  - 9918  RGW-Swift: SubUser access permissions, does not seems to workminor
>  - 10103 swift tests failing
> upgrade:dumpling-firefly-x:parallel-next-distro-basic-multi run
>  - 10471 rgw: metadata sync doesn't create subusers correctly
>  - 9254  rgw: civetweb requires explicit \r\n for http headers
>  - 9478  Incorrect content type in response header
>  - 9479  ETag is not included in the XML response to put object copy
> operationminor
>  - 9877  In some cases it's possible for rgw to segfault on http COPY
>  - 5595  object has a Content-Type, but its content_type property is
> not shown in Swift object enumeration
>  - 9907  Normal    radosgw-admin: can't disable max_size quota
>  - 9973  Validation of Swift DLO manifest object ETag doesn't match
> OpenStack Swift behavior
>  - 10307 rgw: setting bucket attributes (swift POST on bucket)
> sometimes failminor
>  - 9587  ceph-radosgw sysvinit script on EL6 cannot set ulimit
> 
> Your original list included three more:
> 
>  - 9878  rhel7 s3-tests fail due to missing reason
>  - 10329 rgw: s3 need to return SignatureDoesNotMatch instead of AccessDenied
>  - 10334 rgw: s3 need to return InvalidAccessKeyId instead of AccessDenied
> 
> but you wrote that 10329 and 10334 do not need backporting and 9878 was
> already backported.
> 
> Cheers
> --
> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
> 
> 
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html