On 10.11.2016 10:06, Oleg Fayans wrote:
On 11/10/2016 09:43 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
ACK
On the other hand, make it a conditional one. The link in the comment
does not work. Please fix that.
--
Milan Kubik
--
Milan Kubik
After offline discussion and some clarification, the comme
On 11/10/2016 09:43 AM, Martin Basti wrote:
ACK
On the other hand, make it a conditional one. The link in the comment
does not work. Please fix that.
--
Milan Kubik
--
Milan Kubik
After offline discussion and some clarification, the comment is right. ACK
--
Milan Kubik
Because
ACK
On the other hand, make it a conditional one. The link in the comment
does not work. Please fix that.
--
Milan Kubik
--
Milan Kubik
After offline discussion and some clarification, the comment is right. ACK
--
Milan Kubik
Because patches are scattered over this thread, am I r
On 11/09/2016 04:37 PM, Milan Kubík wrote:
On 11/09/2016 04:34 PM, Milan Kubík wrote:
On 11/03/2016 04:56 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
The commit message was updated with the correct ticket link
Thanks for review!
On 11/03/2016 04:22 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
almost ACK, but the ticket in
On 11/03/2016 04:56 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
The commit message was updated with the correct ticket link
Thanks for review!
On 11/03/2016 04:22 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
almost ACK, but the ticket in commit message is closed as invalid. So
I'm quite puzzled now what to do.
On 03.11.20
On 11/09/2016 04:34 PM, Milan Kubík wrote:
On 11/03/2016 04:56 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
The commit message was updated with the correct ticket link
Thanks for review!
On 11/03/2016 04:22 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
almost ACK, but the ticket in commit message is closed as invalid. So
I'm
another ping for review
On 11/08/2016 09:32 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Ping for review
On 11/03/2016 04:56 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
The commit message was updated with the correct ticket link
Thanks for review!
On 11/03/2016 04:22 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
almost ACK, but the ticket in c
Ping for review
On 11/03/2016 04:56 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
The commit message was updated with the correct ticket link
Thanks for review!
On 11/03/2016 04:22 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
almost ACK, but the ticket in commit message is closed as invalid. So
I'm quite puzzled now what to
Hi Martin,
The commit message was updated with the correct ticket link
Thanks for review!
On 11/03/2016 04:22 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
almost ACK, but the ticket in commit message is closed as invalid. So
I'm quite puzzled now what to do.
On 03.11.2016 13:28, Oleg Fayans wrote:
ping for revie
almost ACK, but the ticket in commit message is closed as invalid. So
I'm quite puzzled now what to do.
On 03.11.2016 13:28, Oleg Fayans wrote:
ping for review
On 10/19/2016 04:54 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review. Fixed both issues.
$ ipa-run-tests test_integration/t
ping for review
On 10/19/2016 04:54 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review. Fixed both issues.
$ ipa-run-tests test_integration/test_topology.py -k TestCASpecificRUVs
WARNING: Couldn't write lextab module 'pycparser.lextab'. [Errno 13]
Permission denied: 'lextab.py'
WARNING: y
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review. Fixed both issues.
$ ipa-run-tests test_integration/test_topology.py -k TestCASpecificRUVs
WARNING: Couldn't write lextab module 'pycparser.lextab'. [Errno 13]
Permission denied: 'lextab.py'
WARNING: yacc table file version is out of date
WARNING: Couldn't cre
1)
you don't need to disable/enable dirsrv, just stop/start. Please remove
disable/enable parts
2)
traceback
>
Right you are! I am sorry.
On 10/13/2016 06:10 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
I think that you forgot to squash commits. Patch 47 doesn't apply
On 13.10.2016 14:01, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review.
With disabling directory server it works as well, thanks for the hint.
Also I mov
I think that you forgot to squash commits. Patch 47 doesn't apply
On 13.10.2016 14:01, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review.
With disabling directory server it works as well, thanks for the hint.
Also I moved the cleanup logic to the test itself for the sake of
simplicity. Patc
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review.
With disabling directory server it works as well, thanks for the hint.
Also I moved the cleanup logic to the test itself for the sake of
simplicity. Patch-0048 was not changed
On 10/12/2016 02:35 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
1)
Can you just turn off dirsrv on rep
1)
Can you just turn off dirsrv on replica instead of doing iptables magic?
2) NACK
No more eval() ever in code, use 'getattr', 'get' or whatever in the
object that can be used.
+evalhost = eval("args[0].%s" % host)
Martin^2
On 12.10.2016 14:03, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Mart
Hi Martin,
After extensive discussion with Ludwig, I finally got the clue on how
does this feature work. When we uninstall the replica, the master cleans
the replication agreements with this replica and automatically cleans
all replica's RUVs.
If we clean replica's RUVs on master without unins
Hi Ludwig,
Thanks for the clarification! But then why does CSRUV allows to be
deleted on a working replica? Shouldn't we keep this behavior somehow
consistent?
On 10/07/2016 09:29 AM, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
On 09/13/2016 10:10 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
The ipa-replica-manage clean
On 09/13/2016 10:10 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
The ipa-replica-manage clean-ruv sometimes does not quite work.
For example: I have a master and 2 replicas. Initial output of
'ipa-replica-manage list-ruv' looks like this:
Replica Update Vectors:
f24replica2.pesen.net:389: 7
f
Ping for review
On 10/05/2016 12:02 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
Could you please take a look at it when you have time?
On 09/13/2016 10:10 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
The ipa-replica-manage clean-ruv sometimes does not quite work.
For example: I have a master and 2 replicas. Ini
Hi Ludwig,
Could you please take a look at it when you have time?
On 09/13/2016 10:10 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Ludwig,
The ipa-replica-manage clean-ruv sometimes does not quite work.
For example: I have a master and 2 replicas. Initial output of
'ipa-replica-manage list-ruv' looks like this:
Hi Ludwig,
The ipa-replica-manage clean-ruv sometimes does not quite work.
For example: I have a master and 2 replicas. Initial output of
'ipa-replica-manage list-ruv' looks like this:
Replica Update Vectors:
f24replica2.pesen.net:389: 7
f24master.pesen.net:389: 4
f24
On 03.08.2016 14:45, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review! Both patches were updated.
On 07/28/2016 04:11 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 08.07.2016 15:41, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review!
On 07/08/2016 02:18 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 27.06.2016 13:53,
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review! Both patches were updated.
On 07/28/2016 04:11 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 08.07.2016 15:41, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review!
On 07/08/2016 02:18 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 27.06.2016 13:53, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi guys,
Is there a ch
On 08.07.2016 15:41, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review!
On 07/08/2016 02:18 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 27.06.2016 13:53, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi guys,
Is there a chance the patches NN 0047.1 and 0048.1 get reviewed before
4.4 release? They cover a good part of the Managed
Hi Martin,
Thanks for the review!
On 07/08/2016 02:18 PM, Martin Basti wrote:
On 27.06.2016 13:53, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi guys,
Is there a chance the patches NN 0047.1 and 0048.1 get reviewed before
4.4 release? They cover a good part of the Managed Topology 4.4 feature.
On 06/17/2016 11:18
On 27.06.2016 13:53, Oleg Fayans wrote:
Hi guys,
Is there a chance the patches NN 0047.1 and 0048.1 get reviewed before
4.4 release? They cover a good part of the Managed Topology 4.4 feature.
On 06/17/2016 11:18 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
One more test was added to the patch-0048
On 06/17/2016
Hi guys,
Is there a chance the patches NN 0047.1 and 0048.1 get reviewed before
4.4 release? They cover a good part of the Managed Topology 4.4 feature.
On 06/17/2016 11:18 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
> One more test was added to the patch-0048
>
> On 06/17/2016 09:43 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>> Fixed
One more test was added to the patch-0048
On 06/17/2016 09:43 AM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
> Fixed a bug in the previous patch, automated 2 more testcases from
> http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Manage_replication_topology_4_4/Test_Plan
>
> On 06/16/2016 04:46 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Fixed a bug in the previous patch, automated 2 more testcases from
http://www.freeipa.org/page/V4/Manage_replication_topology_4_4/Test_Plan
On 06/16/2016 04:46 PM, Oleg Fayans wrote:
>
>
>
--
Oleg Fayans
Quality Engineer
FreeIPA team
RedHat.
From 2b087b1dc64500d58e72296f287aabd82cbd011c Mon S
31 matches
Mail list logo