That's true Joe. Ideally the commit should explain the reason of why it was
reverted. I believe Milind is already working on this problem and he should
be able to revive back the patch with the changes required to let all the
tests pass.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Joe Julian wrote:
> The po
The point is, I believe, that one shouldn't have to go digging through
external resources to find out why a commit exists. Please ensure the
commit message has adequate accurate information.
On 01/07/2018 07:11 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
Also please refer
http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/glu
Also please refer
http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-December/054103.html
. Some of the tests like ssl-cipher.t, trash.t were failing frequently in
brick multiplexing enabled regression jobs. When I reverted this patch, I
couldn't reproduce any of those test failures.
On Mon, Ja
On 7 January 2018 at 18:54, Jeff Darcy wrote:
> There's no explanation, or reference to one, in the commit message. In the
> comments, there's a claim that seems a bit exaggerated.
>
> > This is causing almost all the regressions to fail. durbaility-off.t is
> the most affected test.
>
This patc
[...truncated 6 lines...]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1531131 / access-control: Connexion refused with
port 22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1529768 / arbiter: Disk size is incorrect according
to df when an arbiter brick and data brick live on the same server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1524325 / b
There's no explanation, or reference to one, in the commit message. In the
comments, there's a claim that seems a bit exaggerated.
> This is causing almost all the regressions to fail. durbaility-off.t is the
> most affected test.
This patch was merged on December 13. Regressions have passed ma