Hi
./tests/encryption/crypt.t fails regression on
https://build.gluster.org/job/centos6-regression/5112/consoleFull
with a core. It doesn't seem to be related to the patch. Can somebody take
a look at it? Following is the backtrace.
Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
#0
===
#gluster-meeting: Gluster Community Meeting
===
Meeting started by kkeithley at 15:13:53 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/gluster-meeting/2017-06-21/gluster_community_meeting.2
On 06/21/2017 11:37 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Shyam mailto:srang...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi,
Release tagging has been postponed by a day to accommodate a fix for
a regression that has been introduced between 3.11.0 and 3.11.1 (see
[1] f
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Shyam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Release tagging has been postponed by a day to accommodate a fix for a
> regression that has been introduced between 3.11.0 and 3.11.1 (see [1] for
> details).
>
> As a result 3.11.1 will be tagged on the 21st June as of now (further
> delay
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 06:05:32PM +0530, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Nigel Babu wrote:
>
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > Amar has proposed[1] these changes in the past and I'd like to announce us
> > going
> > live with them as we've not received any strong feedback against
GlusterFS Coverity covscan results are available from
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2017-06-21-b2522297
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Nigel Babu wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Amar has proposed[1] these changes in the past and I'd like to announce us
> going
> live with them as we've not received any strong feedback against it.
>
> ## Centos Regression
> * On master, we only run tests/basic as pre-me
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Amar Tumballi wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to get reviews on the following patches.
>>
>> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/15740/5
>> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/15503/
>> https://review.gluster.or
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Hari Gowtham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to get reviews on the following patches.
>
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/15740/5
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/15503/
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17137/
> https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17328/
>
>
I see that on
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Xavier Hernandez
wrote:
> That's ok. I'm currently unable to write a patch for this on ec.
Sunil is working on this patch.
~Karthik
> If no one can do it, I can try to do it in 6 - 7 hours...
>
> Xavi
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 09:48 CEST, Pranith Kumar
That's ok. I'm currently unable to write a patch for this on ec. If no one can
do it, I can try to do it in 6 - 7 hours...
Xavi
On Wednesday, June 21, 2017 09:48 CEST, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Xavier Hernandez
wrote:I'm ok with reverting node-uuid c
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Xavier Hernandez
wrote:
> I'm ok with reverting node-uuid content to the previous format and create
> a new xattr for the new format. Currently, only rebalance will use it.
>
> Only thing to consider is what can happen if we have a half upgraded
> cluster where so
I'm ok with reverting node-uuid content to the previous format and create a new
xattr for the new format. Currently, only rebalance will use it.
Only thing to consider is what can happen if we have a half upgraded cluster
where some clients have this change and some not. Can rebalance work in t
13 matches
Mail list logo