On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:46:39AM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> Hi Niels,
>
> Can we have this in the next 3.8 build. Without this fix, bricks and snapd
> are susceptible to be down. Thanks.
Yes, I am planning to do a 3.8.6 build last week and want to include
this change. Things are rather busy
Hi Niels,
Can we have this in the next 3.8 build. Without this fix, bricks and
snapd are susceptible to be down. Thanks.
Regards,
Avra
On 11/15/2016 11:46 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
Hi Niels,
I don't think there is anything more to add to the release note, in
regards to this patch
Hi Niels,
I don't think there is anything more to add to the release note, in
regards to this patch (http://review.gluster.org/#/c/15308/). Given that
it is a crucial fix, I think we should take this in without further
delay. Thanks.
Regards,
Avra
On 09/19/2016 03:07 PM, Niels de Vos
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:43:29PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> Problem: glusterd used to assume that the brick port which was previously
> allocated to a brick, would still be available, and in doing so would reuse
> the port for the brick without registering with the port map server. The
> port
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:10PM +0530, Avra Sengupta wrote:
> On 09/07/2016 08:33 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> > Hi Avra,
> >
> > http://review.gluster.org/15308 is one of your patches, and this changes
> > the allocation of ports used. It seems to address a real problem, so it
> > is acceptible
On 09/07/2016 08:33 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
Hi Avra,
http://review.gluster.org/15308 is one of your patches, and this changes
the allocation of ports used. It seems to address a real problem, so it
is acceptible to include it in 3.8.
Because it is a user facing change (different ports), we
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday 7 September 2016, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
> pkara...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Just wondering, is it going to be something more than the aggregation of
>> BZ descriptions? Do you think it is better to
On Wednesday 7 September 2016, Pranith Kumar Karampuri
wrote:
> Just wondering, is it going to be something more than the aggregation of
> BZ descriptions? Do you think it is better to callout just some BZs which
> are user facing compared to the normal aggregation?
>
IMHO,
Just wondering, is it going to be something more than the aggregation of BZ
descriptions? Do you think it is better to callout just some BZs which are
user facing compared to the normal aggregation?
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> Hi Avra,
>
>