Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6.2: Expected tagging on May 15th

These patches were dependent on each other, so a merge was not required to get regression passing, that analysis seems incorrect. A patch series when tested, will pull in all the dependent patches anyway, so please relook at what the failure could be. (I assume you would anyway). Shyam On

[Gluster-devel] Announcing Gluster release 6.1

The Gluster community is pleased to announce the release of Gluster 6.1 (packages available at [1]). Release notes for the release can be found at [2]. Major changes, features and limitations addressed in this release: None Thanks, Gluster community [1] Packages for 6.1:

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6.1: Tagged!

Is now tagged and being packaged. If anyone gets a chance, please test the packages from CentOS SIG, as I am unavailable for the next 4 days. Thanks, Shyam On 4/16/19 9:53 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Status: Tagging pending > > Waiting on patches: > (Kotresh/Atin) - glusterd:

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6.1: Expected tagging on April 10th

redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1692394, in > case anyone wants to add blocker bugs. > > > On 05/04/19 8:03 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Expected tagging date for release-6.1 is on April, 10th, 2019. > > >

[Gluster-devel] Release 6.1: Expected tagging on April 10th

Hi, Expected tagging date for release-6.1 is on April, 10th, 2019. Please ensure required patches are backported and also are passing regressions and are appropriately reviewed for easy merging and tagging on the date. Thanks, Shyam ___ Gluster-devel

[Gluster-devel] Announcing Gluster release 4.1.8

The Gluster community is pleased to announce the release of Gluster 4.1.8 (packages available at [1]). Release notes for the release can be found at [2]. Major changes, features and limitations addressed in this release: None Thanks, Gluster community [1] Packages for 4.1.8:

[Gluster-devel] Announcing Gluster Release 6

The Gluster community is pleased to announce the release of 6.0, our latest release. This is a major release that includes a range of code improvements and stability fixes along with a few features as noted below. A selection of the key features and bugs addressed are documented in this [1]

Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster version EOL date

As per the release schedule page [1] 5 will EOL when release 8 is out. Releases are 4 months apart, hence 12 months from when release 5 was out, it would be EOL'd. Major releases receive minor updates 5.x, which are bug fixes and stability fixes. These do not extend the 12 month cycle for the

[Gluster-devel] Release 6: Tagged and ready for packaging

Hi, RC1 testing is complete and blockers have been addressed. The release is now tagged for a final round of packaging and package testing before release. Thanks for testing out the RC builds and reporting issues that needed to be addressed. As packaging and final package testing is finishing

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] GlusterFS - 6.0RC - Test days (27th, 28th Feb)

On 3/4/19 12:33 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 3/4/19 10:08 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 20:33, Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan >> mailto:atumb...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> Thanks to those who participated. >> >

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] GlusterFS - 6.0RC - Test days (27th, 28th Feb)

On 3/4/19 10:08 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 20:33, Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan > mailto:atumb...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Thanks to those who participated. > > Update at present: > > We found 3 blocker bugs in upgrade scenarios, and hence have marked >

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] glusterfs-6.0rc0 released

Hi, Release-6 RC0 packages are built (see mail below). This is a good time to start testing the release bits, and reporting any issues on bugzilla. Do post on the lists any testing done and feedback from the same. We have about 2 weeks to GA of release-6 barring any major blockers uncovered

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Branched and next steps

On 2/20/19 7:45 AM, Amar Tumballi Suryanarayan wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:37 AM Shyam Ranganathan <mailto:srang...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > In preparation for RC0 I have put up an intial patch for the release > notes [1]. Request the following

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Branched and next steps

used in the brick process" and the actual status of the same in the notes RC0 build target would be tomorrow or by Wednesday. Thanks, Shyam [1] Release notes patch: https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/6 On 2/5/19 8:25 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Hi, > > Release 6 is br

[Gluster-devel] Release 6: Branched and next steps

Hi, Release 6 is branched, and tracker bug for 6.0 is created [1]. Do mark blockers for the release against [1]. As of now we are only tracking [2] "core: implement a global thread pool " for a backport as a feature into the release. We expect to create RC0 tag and builds for upgrade and other

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Kick off!

nging this to notice. > > Thanks, > Soumya > > [1] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/21734/ > > > On 1/23/19 8:43 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> On 1/23/19 6:03 AM, Ashish Pandey wrote: >>> >>> Following is the patch I am working and targeti

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Kick off!

On 1/23/19 6:03 AM, Ashish Pandey wrote: > > Following is the patch I am working and targeting -  > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/21933/ This is a bug fix, and the patch size at the moment is also small in lines changed. Hence, even if it misses branching the fix can be backported.

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Kick off!

On 1/23/19 5:52 AM, RAFI KC wrote: > There are three patches that I'm working for Gluster-6. > > [1] : https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/22075/ We discussed mux for shd in the maintainers meeting, and decided that this would be for the next release, as the patchset is not ready

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Kick off!

On 12/6/18 9:34 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 11/6/18 11:34 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> ## Schedule > > We have decided to postpone release-6 by a month, to accommodate for > late enhancements and the drive towards getting what is required for the > GCS project [1] d

Re: [Gluster-devel] Regression health for release-5.next and release-6

gt; > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:55 PM Atin Mukherjee <mailto:amukh...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > Mohit, Sanju - request you to investigate the failures related to > glusterd and brick-mux and report back to the list. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:25 AM Shyam Rang

[Gluster-devel] Regression health for release-5.next and release-6

Hi, As part of branching preparation next week for release-6, please find test failures and respective test links here [1]. The top tests that are failing/dumping-core are as below and need attention, - ec/bug-1236065.t - glusterd/add-brick-and-validate-replicated-volume-options.t -

Re: [Gluster-devel] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/19778/

On 1/8/19 8:33 AM, Nithya Balachandran wrote: > Shyam, what is your take on this? > An upstream user has tried it out and reported that it seems to fix the > issue , however cpu utilization doubles. We usually do not backport big fixes unless they are critical. My first answer would be, can't

[Gluster-devel] Announcing Gluster release 5.2

The Gluster community is pleased to announce the release of Gluster 5.2 (packages available at [1]). Release notes can be found at [2]. Major changes, features and limitations addressed in this release: - Several bugs as listed in the release notes have been addressed Thanks, Gluster community

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 6: Kick off!

On 11/6/18 11:34 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > ## Schedule We have decided to postpone release-6 by a month, to accommodate for late enhancements and the drive towards getting what is required for the GCS project [1] done in core glusterfs. This puts the (modified) schedule for Releas

[Gluster-devel] Patches in merge conflict

Due to the merge of https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/21746 which changes a whole lot of files to get header includes with the new changed path for libglusterfs includes, a lot of patches are in merge conflict. If you notice that your patch is one such, please rebase to the tip of master,

[Gluster-devel] Geo-rep tests failing on master Cent7-regressions

Hi Kotresh, Multiple geo-rep tests are failing on master on various patch regressions. Looks like you have put in https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/21794 for review, to address the issue at present. Would that be correct? Thanks, Shyam ___

[Gluster-devel] Problem: Include libglusterfs files in gfapi headers

In the commit [1] that introduces statx structure as an out arg from glfs APIs, there is a need to provide a compatible header for statx, when the base distribution does not still support statx (say centos7). The header is provided as libglusterfs/src/compat-statx.h and is packaged with the

[Gluster-devel] Release 4.1.7 & 5.2

Hi, As 4.1.6 and 5.1 are now tagged and off to packaging, announcing the tracker and dates for the next minor versions of these stable releases. 4.1.7: - Tracker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=glusterfs-4.1.7 - Deadline for fixes: 2019-01-21 5.2: - Tracker:

Re: [Gluster-devel] Regression failure: https://build.gluster.org/job/centos7-regression/3678/

On 11/14/2018 10:04 AM, Nithya Balachandran wrote: > Hi Mohit, > > The regression run in the subject has failed because a brick has crashed in  > > bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t > > > *06:03:38* 1 test(s) generated core > *06:03:38* ./tests/bugs/core/bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster Weekly Report : Static Analyser

On 11/06/2018 02:08 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Hi, > > I was attempting to fix a class of "Insecure data handling" defects in > coverity around GF_FREE accessing tainted strings. Below is a short > writeup of the same (pasted into the notes for each issue as we

Re: [Gluster-devel] Gluster Weekly Report : Static Analyser

Hi, I was attempting to fix a class of "Insecure data handling" defects in coverity around GF_FREE accessing tainted strings. Below is a short writeup of the same (pasted into the notes for each issue as well). Notifying the list of the same. (attempted annotation) Fix:

[Gluster-devel] Release 6: Kick off!

Hi, With release-5 out of the door, it is time to start some activities for release-6. ## Scope It is time to collect and determine scope for the release, so as usual, please send in features/enhancements that you are working towards reaching maturity for this release to the devel list, and

Re: [Gluster-devel] Consolidating Feature Requests in github

On 11/05/2018 08:29 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote: > Hi All, > > I am triaging the open RFEs in bugzilla [1]. Since our new(er) workflow > involves managing RFEs as github issues, I am considering migrating > relevant open RFEs from bugzilla to github. Once migrated, a RFE in > bugzilla would be closed

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: GA Tagged and release tarball generated

GA tagging done and release tarball is generated. 5.1 release tracker is now open for blockers against the same: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=glusterfs-5.1 5.x minor release is set to release on the 10th of every month, jFYI (as the release schedule page in the website is

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: GA tomorrow!

On 10/15/2018 02:29 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 10/11/2018 11:25 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> So we are through with a series of checks and tasks on release-5 (like >> ensuring all backports to other branches are present in 5, upgrade >> testing, basic performance tes

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-users] Announcing Glusterfs release 3.12.15 (Long Term Maintenance)

On 10/17/2018 07:08 AM, Paolo Margara wrote: > Hi, > > this release will be the last of the 3.12.x branch prior it reach the EOL? Yes that is true, this would be the last minor release, as release-5 comes out. > > > Greetings, > >     Paolo > > Il 16/10/18 17:41, Jiffin Tony Thottan ha

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: GA and what are we waiting on

On 10/11/2018 11:25 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > So we are through with a series of checks and tasks on release-5 (like > ensuring all backports to other branches are present in 5, upgrade > testing, basic performance testing, Package testing, etc.), but still > need the following r

[Gluster-devel] Maintainer meeting minutes : 15th Oct, 2018

### BJ Link * Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/217609845 * Watch: ### Attendance * Nigel, Nithya, Deepshikha, Akarsha, Kaleb, Shyam, Sunny ### Agenda * AI from previous meeting: - Glusto-Test completion on release-5 branch - On Glusto team - Vijay will take this on. - He will be

[Gluster-devel] Release 5: GA and what are we waiting on

So we are through with a series of checks and tasks on release-5 (like ensuring all backports to other branches are present in 5, upgrade testing, basic performance testing, Package testing, etc.), but still need the following resolved else we stand to delay the release GA tagging, which I hope to

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Missing option documentation (need inputs)

On 10/10/2018 11:20 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 20:30, Shyam Ranganathan <mailto:srang...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > The following options were added post 4.1 and are part of 5.0 as the > first release for the same. They we

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Branched and further dates

On 09/26/2018 10:21 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 3. Upgrade testing > - Need *volunteers* to do the upgrade testing as stated in the 4.1 > upgrade guide [3] to note any differences or changes to the same > - Explicit call out on *disperse* volumes, as we continue to state >

[Gluster-devel] Nightly build status (week of 01 - 07 Oct, 2018)

We have a set of 4 cores which seem to originate from 2 bugs as filed and referenced below. Bug 1: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636570 Cleanup sequence issues in posix xlator. Mohit/Xavi/Du/Pranith are we handling this as a part of addressing cleanup in brick mux, or should we?

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Branched and further dates

On 10/05/2018 10:59 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 10/04/2018 11:33 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> On 09/13/2018 11:10 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >>> RC1 would be around 24th of Sep. with final release tagging around 1st >>> of Oct. >> RC1 now stands t

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Branched and further dates

On 10/04/2018 11:33 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 09/13/2018 11:10 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> RC1 would be around 24th of Sep. with final release tagging around 1st >> of Oct. > > RC1 now stands to be tagged tomorrow, and patches that are being > targeted for

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Branched and further dates

On 10/04/2018 12:01 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > 4) This bug [2] was filed when we released 4.0. > > The issue has not bitten us in 4.0 or in 4.1 (yet!) (i.e the options > missing and hence post-upgrade clients failing the mount). This is > possibly the last chance to fix it. > >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Branched and further dates

On 09/13/2018 11:10 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > RC1 would be around 24th of Sep. with final release tagging around 1st > of Oct. RC1 now stands to be tagged tomorrow, and patches that are being targeted for a back port include, 1) https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/21314 (sn

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Memory overwrites due to processing vol files???

y Shyam > should fix the crash. [1] > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/glusterfs/+/21299/ > > But, I am still trying understand, why a brick process should get a > client volfile (i.e. the 1st issue mentioned above).  > > Regards, > Raghavendra > > On Wed, Sep 26,

Re: [Gluster-devel] Python3 build process

On 09/28/2018 09:11 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 08:57:06AM -0400, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> On 09/28/2018 06:12 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:40:54AM -0400, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >>>> On 09/27/2018 08:

Re: [Gluster-devel] Python3 build process

On 09/28/2018 12:36 AM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar wrote: > > - All regression hosts are currently py2 and so if we do not run > the py > > shebang correction during configure (as we do not build and test from > > RPMS), we would be running with incorrect py3 shebangs (although

Re: [Gluster-devel] Python3 build process

On 09/28/2018 06:12 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:40:54AM -0400, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> On 09/27/2018 08:07 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: >>>> The thought is, >>>> - Add a configure option "--enable-py-version-correction" to

Re: [Gluster-devel] Python3 build process

On 09/27/2018 08:07 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: >> The thought is, >> - Add a configure option "--enable-py-version-correction" to configure, >> that is disabled by default > "correction" implies there's something that's incorrect. How about > "conversion" or perhaps just --enable-python2 > I

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Memory overwrites due to processing vol files???

On 09/26/2018 10:21 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 2. Testing dashboard to maintain release health (new, thanks Nigel) > - Dashboard at [2] > - We already have 3 failures here as follows, needs attention from > appropriate *maintainers*, > (a) > https://build.gluster.

[Gluster-devel] Python3 build process

Hi, With the introduction of default python 3 shebangs and the change in configure.ac to correct these to py2 if the build is being attempted on a machine that does not have py3, there are a couple of issues uncovered. Here is the plan to fix the same, suggestions welcome. Issues: - A configure

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Branched and further dates

-release-5/ [3] 4.1 upgrade guide: https://docs.gluster.org/en/latest/Upgrade-Guide/upgrade_to_4.1/ On 09/13/2018 11:10 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Hi, > > Release 5 has been branched today. To backport fixes to the upcoming 5.0 > release use the tracker bug [1]. > > We inte

[Gluster-devel] Release 5: Branched and further dates

Hi, Release 5 has been branched today. To backport fixes to the upcoming 5.0 release use the tracker bug [1]. We intend to roll out RC0 build by end of tomorrow for testing, unless the set of usual cleanup patches (op-version, some messages, gfapi version) land in any form of trouble. RC1 would

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Release calendar and status updates

On 08/22/2018 02:03 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 08/14/2018 02:28 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> 2) Branching date: (Monday) Aug-20-2018 (~40 days before GA tagging) > > We are postponing branching to 2nd week of September (10th), as the > entire effort in this relea

Re: [Gluster-devel] Proposal to change Gerrit -> Bugzilla updates

On 09/10/2018 08:37 AM, Nigel Babu wrote: > Hello folks, > > We now have review.gluster.org as an > external tracker on Bugzilla. Our current automation when there is a > bugzilla attached to a patch is as follows: > > 1. When a new patchset has "Fixes: bz#1234" or

[Gluster-devel] Test health report (week ending 26th Aug, 2018)

Need more focus on the retry cases, so that we have fewer failures overall due to the same. 2 useful changes are in, fstat now has the ability to filter by job, and tests that timeout will save older logs for analysis (assuming of course the run failed, if on retry the run passes then the job is

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Release calendar and status updates

On 08/14/2018 02:28 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 2) Branching date: (Monday) Aug-20-2018 (~40 days before GA tagging) We are postponing branching to 2nd week of September (10th), as the entire effort in this release has been around stability and fixing issues across the board. Thus,

[Gluster-devel] Test health report (week ending 19th Aug. 2018)

Although tests have stabilized quite a bit, and from the maintainers meeting we know that some tests have patches coming in, here is a readout of other tests that needed a retry. We need to reduce failures on retries as well, to be able to not have spurious or other failures in test runs. Tests

[Gluster-devel] Release 5: Release calendar and status updates

This mail is to solicit the following, Features/enhancements planned for Gluster 5 needs the following from contributors: - Open/Use relevant issue - Mark issue with the "Release 5" milestone [1] - Post to the devel lists issue details, requesting addition to track the same for the release

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Master branch lock down for stabilization (unlocking the same)

On 08/14/2018 12:51 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:55 PM Shyam Ranganathan <mailto:srang...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 08/13/2018 02:20 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > >     - At the end of 2 weeks, reassess master

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (UNSOLVED bug-1110262.t)

On 08/12/2018 08:42 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > As a means of keeping the focus going and squashing the remaining tests > that were failing sporadically, request each test/component owner to, > > - respond to this mail changing the subject (testname.t) to the

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (UNSOLVED ./tests/basic/stats-dump.t)

On 08/13/2018 02:32 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > I will be adding a bug and a fix that tries this in a loop to avoid the > potential race that I see above as the cause. Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615582 Potential fix: https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/20726

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (UNSOLVED ./tests/basic/stats-dump.t)

On 08/12/2018 08:42 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > As a means of keeping the focus going and squashing the remaining tests > that were failing sporadically, request each test/component owner to, > > - respond to this mail changing the subject (testname.t) to the

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (./tests/bugs/core/bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t)

On 08/12/2018 08:42 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > As a means of keeping the focus going and squashing the remaining tests > that were failing sporadically, request each test/component owner to, > > - respond to this mail changing the subject (testname.t) to the

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (./tests/bugs/distribute/bug-1042725.t)

On 08/12/2018 08:42 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > As a means of keeping the focus going and squashing the remaining tests > that were failing sporadically, request each test/component owner to, > > - respond to this mail changing the subject (testname.t) to the

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (./tests/bugs/distribute/bug-1117851.t)

On 08/12/2018 08:42 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > As a means of keeping the focus going and squashing the remaining tests > that were failing sporadically, request each test/component owner to, > > - respond to this mail changing the subject (testname.t) to the

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Master branch lock down for stabilization (unlocking the same)

On 08/13/2018 02:20 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote: > - At the end of 2 weeks, reassess master and nightly test status, and > see if we need another drive towards stabilizing master by locking down > the same and focusing only on test and code stability around the same. > > > When

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down: RCA for tests (testname.t)

As a means of keeping the focus going and squashing the remaining tests that were failing sporadically, request each test/component owner to, - respond to this mail changing the subject (testname.t) to the test name that they are responding to (adding more than one in case they have the same RCA)

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Aug 12th, 2018) (patchset 12)

here: https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/20637/12#message-186adbee76d6999385022239cb2daba589f0a81f Shyam On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Deserves a new beginning, threads on the other mail have gone deep enough. > > NOTE: (5) below needs your attention, rest is jus

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Patch set 11, Aug 12, 2018)

://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/20637/12#message-1f8f94aaa88be276229f20eb25a650381bc37543 On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Deserves a new beginning, threads on the other mail have gone deep enough. > > NOTE: (5) below needs your attention, rest is just process and data on >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Sat. Aug 10th)

#message-2030bb77ed8d98618caded7b823bc4d65238e911 On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Deserves a new beginning, threads on the other mail have gone deep enough. > > NOTE: (5) below needs your attention, rest is just process and data on > how to find failures. > >

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Wed, August 08th)

On 08/09/2018 10:58 PM, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:38 AM, Shyam Ranganathan <mailto:srang...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 08/08/2018 09:04 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > > Today's patch set 7 [1], included fixes

Re: [Gluster-devel] tests/bugs/core/multiplex-limit-issue-151.t timed out

On 08/11/2018 12:43 AM, Mohit Agrawal wrote: > File a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1615003, I am not > able to extract logs > specific to this test case from the log dump. This is because the test is calling cleanup twice in its exit bash traps. - First, the test itself sets a

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Fri, August 9th)

On 08/10/2018 09:59 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Today's patch set is 9 [1]. > > Total of 7 runs for line-coverage, mux regressions, centos7 regressions > are running (some are yet to complete). > > Test failure summary is as follows, Updating this section 1. ./tests/bugs/g

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Master branch lock down status (Fri, August 9th)

d from run-tests.sh (when there are retries) then the logs will be archived. We do not call out a run as a failure in case there were retries, hence no logs. I will add this today to the WIP testing patchset. > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 9:40 AM Ravishankar N <mailto:ravishan...@redhat

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Fri, August 9th)

recording runs till now: https://review.gluster.org/c/glusterfs/+/20637#message-07f3886dda133ed642438eb9e82b82d957668e86 On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Deserves a new beginning, threads on the other mail have gone deep enough. > > NOTE: (5) below needs your attention, res

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Thu, August 09th)

/8#message-54de30fa384fd02b0426d9db6d07fad4eeefcf08 On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Deserves a new beginning, threads on the other mail have gone deep enough. > > NOTE: (5) below needs your attention, rest is just process and data on > how to find failures. > > 1) We

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Wed, August 08th)

On 08/08/2018 09:04 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Today's patch set 7 [1], included fixes provided till last evening IST, > and its runs can be seen here [2] (yay! we can link to comments in > gerrit now). > > New failures: (added to the spreadsheet) > ./tests/bugs/quick

Re: [Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status (Wed, August 08th)

07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Deserves a new beginning, threads on the other mail have gone deep enough. > > NOTE: (5) below needs your attention, rest is just process and data on > how to find failures. > > 1) We are running the tests using the patch [2]. > > 2) R

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Master branch lock down status

On 08/08/2018 09:43 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 08/08/2018 09:41 AM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar wrote: >> For geo-rep test retrials. Could you take this instrumentation patch [1] >> and give a run? >> I am have tried thrice on the patch with brick mux enabled and wi

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Master branch lock down status

On 08/08/2018 04:56 AM, Nigel Babu wrote: > Also, Shyam was saying that in case of retries, the old (failure) logs > get overwritten by the retries which are successful. Can we disable > re-trying the .ts when they fail just for this lock down period > alone so > that we do

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Master branch lock down status

On 08/08/2018 09:41 AM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar wrote: > For geo-rep test retrials. Could you take this instrumentation patch [1] > and give a run? > I am have tried thrice on the patch with brick mux enabled and without > but couldn't hit > geo-rep failure. May be some race and it's not

Re: [Gluster-devel] Test: ./tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t

On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 5) Current test failures > We still have the following tests failing and some without any RCA or > attention, (If something is incorrect, write back). > > ./tests/bugs/ec/bug-1236065.t (Ashish) Ashish/Atin, the above test faile

Re: [Gluster-devel] Test: ./tests/bugs/distribute/bug-1042725.t

On 08/07/2018 07:37 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 6) Tests that are addressed or are not occurring anymore are, > > ./tests/bugs/distribute/bug-1042725.t The above test fails, I think due to cleanup not completing in the previous test failure. The failed runs are: https://build.gluste

[Gluster-devel] Master branch lock down status

tests/bugs/distribute/bug-1122443.t ./tests/bugs/core/bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t Shyam (and Atin) On 08/05/2018 06:24 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > Health on master as of the last nightly run [4] is still the same. > > Potential patches that rectify the situation (as in [1]) are bunc

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

On 08/07/2018 02:58 PM, Yaniv Kaul wrote: > The intention is to stabilize master and not add more patches that my > destabilize it. > > > https://review.gluster.org/#/c/20603/ has been merged. > As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with stabilization and should > be reverted.

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

On 07/31/2018 07:16 AM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 07/30/2018 03:21 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >>> 1) master branch health checks (weekly, till branching) >>> - Expect every Monday a status update on vari

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Nightly test failures tracking

On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 1) master branch health checks (weekly, till branching) > - Expect every Monday a status update on various tests runs As we have quite a few jobs failing and quite a few tests failing, to enable tracking this better I have created the

Re: [Gluster-devel] bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t failures

On 08/01/2018 11:10 PM, Nigel Babu wrote: > Hi Shyam, > > Amar and I sat down to debug this failure[1] this morning. There was a > bit of fun looking at the logs. It looked like the test restarted > itself. The first log entry is at 16:20:03. This test has a timeout of > 400 seconds which is

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

-EMLINK-handling.t, 405 tests/bugs/replicate/bug-1386188-sbrain-fav-child.t, 4048 tests/bugs/replicate/bug-1433571-undo-pending-only-on-up-bricks.t, 813 Thanks, Shyam On 07/30/2018 03:21 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Sh

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

On 07/31/2018 12:41 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: > tests/bugs/core/bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t - Times out even after > 400 secs. Refer > https://fstat.gluster.org/failure/209?state=2_date=2018-06-30_date=2018-07-31=all, > specifically the latest report >

Re: [Gluster-devel] [Gluster-Maintainers] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

On 08/01/2018 12:13 AM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: >> Thinking aloud, we may have to stop merges to master to get these test >> failures addressed at the earliest and to continue maintaining them >> GREEN for the health of the branch. >> >> I would give the above a week, before we lockdown the

Re: [Gluster-devel] FreeBSD smoke test may fail for older changes, rebase needed

On 07/31/2018 02:12 AM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 02:44:57PM -0400, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> On 07/28/2018 12:45 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: >>> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote: >>>> This Friday argp-standalone got in

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

On 07/30/2018 03:21 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: >> 1) master branch health checks (weekly, till branching) >> - Expect every Monday a status update on various tests runs > > See https://build.gluster.org/job/nightly

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)

On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 1) master branch health checks (weekly, till branching) > - Expect every Monday a status update on various tests runs See https://build.gluster.org/job/nightly-master/ for a report on various nightly and periodic jobs on master.

Re: [Gluster-devel] FreeBSD smoke test may fail for older changes, rebase needed

On 07/28/2018 12:45 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote: >> This Friday argp-standalone got installed on the FreeBSD Jenkins >> slave(s). With the library available, we can now drop the bundled and >> unmaintained contrib/argp-standlone/ from our

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 23rd July)

On 07/26/2018 12:53 AM, Nigel Babu wrote: > 3) bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t times out consistently: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1608568 > > @nigel is there a way to on-demand request lcov tests through gerrit? I > am thinking of pushing a patch that increases

Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 23rd July)

On 07/25/2018 04:18 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 2) glusterd crash in test sdfs-sanity.t: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1608566 > > glusterd folks, request you to take a look to correct this. Persisted with this a little longer and the fix is pos

  1   2   3   >