Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: Hi Ceph, An optional teuthology field could

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > > > On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> Hi Ceph, >>> >>> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: >>> >>>

Compiling for FreeBSD

Hi, Not unlike many others running FreeBSD I'd like to see if I/we can get Ceph to build and run on FreeBSD. If not all components than at least certain components. With compilation I do get quite some way, even with the CLANG compiler. But I run into obvious part where Linux goes a different

Re: Compiling for FreeBSD

On 29-11-2015 19:08, Haomai Wang wrote: > I guess we still expect FreeBSD support, which version do you test to > compile? I'd like to help to make bsd work :-) I considered it is best to develop against HEAD aka: 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #0 r291381: Sat Nov 28 14:22:54 CET 2015 I'm

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 29/11/2015 23:55, John Spray wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> >> >> On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: >

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Ceph, > > An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: > > teuthology: --suite rbd > > to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It could be > parsed by bots and humans. >

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > > > On 29/11/2015 21:47, John Spray wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary

Re: Compiling for FreeBSD

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > Hi, > > Not unlike many others running FreeBSD I'd like to see if I/we can get > Ceph to build and run on FreeBSD. If not all components than at least > certain components. > > With compilation I do get quite some

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 29/11/2015 21:08, John Spray wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Ceph, >> >> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: >> >> teuthology: --suite rbd >> >> to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

Hi Joao, On 29/11/2015 12:51, Joao Eduardo Luis wrote: > On 11/28/2015 03:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> Hi Ceph, >> >> An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: >> >> teuthology: --suite rbd >> >> to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It

Re: RFC: teuthology field in commit messages

On 11/28/2015 03:56 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: > Hi Ceph, > > An optional teuthology field could be added to a commit message like so: > > teuthology: --suite rbd > > to state that this commit should be tested with the rbd suite. It could be > parsed by bots and humans. > > It would make it easy

Re: Compiling for FreeBSD

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > On 29-11-2015 19:08, Haomai Wang wrote: > > > I guess we still expect FreeBSD support, which version do you test to > > compile? I'd like to help to make bsd work :-) > > I considered it is best to develop against

Re: Compiling for FreeBSD

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:46:27AM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > > > > On 29-11-2015 19:08, Haomai Wang wrote: > > > > > I guess we still expect FreeBSD support, which version do you test to > > > compile? I'd like to

Re: Bucket namespaces pull req. 5872

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:09:41 +0100 Radoslaw Zarzynski wrote: > > The rgw_swift_account_in_url should be possible to incorporate > > in a compatible fashion (it does not add an extra next_tok()). > > According to "rgw_swift_account_in_url": I don’t see viable method for