On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 at 19:05, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le vendredi 06 octobre 2017 à 16:53 +0530, Gaurav Yadav a écrit :
> > As gluster cli was failing to create a volume which has tons of brick
> > request in one command.
> > I added this https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18271/5/tests/bugs/cli/bu
>
Hi,
Release 3.10.6 is announced [1] and fixed bugs are now closed.
In preparation for the 3.10.7 release, here are the required details,
1) Tracker bug to mark blockers against:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=glusterfs-3.10.7
2) Release tagging would be on(around) the 30th of Oc
Hi,
While installing a VM for testing purpose on pleometrosis, the server
did reboot during installation (or rather after it failed). I moved the
VM installation to haplometrosis, who did promprly reboot as well.
No impact on the important serice since they run mostly builder, but if
you see buil
Le vendredi 06 octobre 2017 à 16:53 +0530, Gaurav Yadav a écrit :
> As gluster cli was failing to create a volume which has tons of brick
> request in one command.
> I added this https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18271/5/tests/bugs/cli/bu
> g-
> 1490853.t test to ensure that
> gluster is able to pars
GlusterFS Coverity covscan results are available from
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2017-10-06-12cfc198
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman
As gluster cli was failing to create a volume which has tons of brick
request in one command.
I added this https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18271/5/tests/bugs/cli/bug-
1490853.t test to ensure that
gluster is able to parse large request.
As per the bug "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=14
The test which is failing is also introduced with the same patch. It is
supposed to validate the functionality introduced. From the history of earlier
patchsets of same patch, same test has failed earlier too, albeit
inconsistently (though the merged version has passed centos regressions). So,
Hi,
It's time to prepare the 3.12.2 release, which falls on the 10th of
each month, and hence would be 10-10-2017 this time around.
This mail is to call out the following,
1) Are there any pending *blocker* bugs that need to be tracked for
3.12.2? If so mark them against the provided tracker [1
Hi,
so on the last 2 days, I have been contacted by people because some
builders were failling. Upon investigation ( https://bugzilla.redhat.co
m/show_bug.cgi?id=1498390 ), the main issue seems to be the following:
Each build failed had a set of glusterd process (around 300) that where
started by
On Thursday 05 October 2017 10:15 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
Nothing should ever be auto-started. Ubuntu has it wrong. If you're
going to enable any access to a machine, it should be by design, not
by default.
+1
Just installing the bits need not require the service to be enabled by
default.
S
Without a patch test case will fail, it is an expected behavior.
Regards
Mohit Agrawal
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ravishankar N
wrote:
> The test is failing on master without any patches:
> [root@tuxpad glusterfs]# prove tests/bugs/bug-1371806_1.t
> tests/bugs/bug-1371806_1.t .. 7/9 setf
The test is failing on master without any patches:
[root@tuxpad glusterfs]# prove tests/bugs/bug-1371806_1.t
tests/bugs/bug-1371806_1.t .. 7/9 setfattr: ./tmp1: No such file or
directory
setfattr: ./tmp2: No such file or directory
setfattr: ./tmp3: No such file or directory
setfattr: ./tmp4: No
12 matches
Mail list logo
