Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[Nathan Cutler]

Hi John:

The following cephfs backports have been merged into the jewel branch in 
preparation for the 10.2.8 release.

http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/cephfs/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f%5B%5D=status_id&op%5Bstatus_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bstatus_id%5D%5B%5D=3&f%5B%5D=tracker_id&op%5Btracker_id%5D=%3D&v%5Btracker_id%5D%5B%5D=9&f%5B%5D=fixed_version_id&op%5Bfixed_version_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bfixed_version_id%5D%5B%5D=537&f%5B%5D=&c%5B%5D=project&c%5B%5D=tracker&c%5B%5D=status&c%5B%5D=priority&c%5B%5D=subject&c%5B%5D=assigned_to&c%5B%5D=updated_on&c%5B%5D=category&c%5B%5D=fixed_version&c%5B%5D=cf_3&group_by=&t%5B%5D=

(I thought there were more than two, but apparently not?)

Do you think it's time for QE to do its testing?

Nathan

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[Dan van der Ster]

Hi,

Would it be possible to get these into 10.2.8?

    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19677
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19762
    http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20027

Thanks!

Dan


On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> Hi John:
>
> The following cephfs backports have been merged into the jewel branch in
> preparation for the 10.2.8 release.
>
> http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/cephfs/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f%5B%5D=status_id&op%5Bstatus_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bstatus_id%5D%5B%5D=3&f%5B%5D=tracker_id&op%5Btracker_id%5D=%3D&v%5Btracker_id%5D%5B%5D=9&f%5B%5D=fixed_version_id&op%5Bfixed_version_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bfixed_version_id%5D%5B%5D=537&f%5B%5D=&c%5B%5D=project&c%5B%5D=tracker&c%5B%5D=status&c%5B%5D=priority&c%5B%5D=subject&c%5B%5D=assigned_to&c%5B%5D=updated_on&c%5B%5D=category&c%5B%5D=fixed_version&c%5B%5D=cf_3&group_by=&t%5B%5D=
>
> (I thought there were more than two, but apparently not?)
>
> Do you think it's time for QE to do its testing?
>
> Nathan
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[John Spray]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Dan van der Ster <dan@vanderster.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to get these into 10.2.8?
>
>     http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19677
>     http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19762
>     http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20027

I've been a bit behind on reviewing backports lately, sorry about that.

I've merged the first two of those.  The third one had a PR that
didn't have the cephfs label so it got missed.

Nathan, if we have time to do another pre-merge test run for jewel
backports, then there are a few with label:cephfs and my review on,
that would just need to go through a fs suite.

Cheers,
John

> Thanks!
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> Hi John:
>>
>> The following cephfs backports have been merged into the jewel branch in
>> preparation for the 10.2.8 release.
>>
>> http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/cephfs/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f%5B%5D=status_id&op%5Bstatus_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bstatus_id%5D%5B%5D=3&f%5B%5D=tracker_id&op%5Btracker_id%5D=%3D&v%5Btracker_id%5D%5B%5D=9&f%5B%5D=fixed_version_id&op%5Bfixed_version_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bfixed_version_id%5D%5B%5D=537&f%5B%5D=&c%5B%5D=project&c%5B%5D=tracker&c%5B%5D=status&c%5B%5D=priority&c%5B%5D=subject&c%5B%5D=assigned_to&c%5B%5D=updated_on&c%5B%5D=category&c%5B%5D=fixed_version&c%5B%5D=cf_3&group_by=&t%5B%5D=
>>
>> (I thought there were more than two, but apparently not?)
>>
>> Do you think it's time for QE to do its testing?
>>
>> Nathan
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[Nathan Cutler]

> Nathan, if we have time to do another pre-merge test run for jewel
> backports, then there are a few with label:cephfs and my review on,
> that would just need to go through a fs suite.

OK, I think we can manage that. Please note that it's the 
milestone:jewel tag in the PR that determines whether the PR gets picked 
up for integration testing. If the milestone is not set, the script 
doesn't see it. (I will look into patching the script so it makes noise 
if it sees a PR targeting the jewel branch but without a milestone, or 
with the wrong milestone.)

Nathan

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[John Spray]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
>> Nathan, if we have time to do another pre-merge test run for jewel
>> backports, then there are a few with label:cephfs and my review on,
>> that would just need to go through a fs suite.
>
>
> OK, I think we can manage that. Please note that it's the milestone:jewel
> tag in the PR that determines whether the PR gets picked up for integration
> testing. If the milestone is not set, the script doesn't see it. (I will
> look into patching the script so it makes noise if it sees a PR targeting
> the jewel branch but without a milestone, or with the wrong milestone.)

Just curious, why do we add that label?  I've always filtered this by
using "base:jewel" in github.

John

> Nathan

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[Nathan Cutler]

> Just curious, why do we add that label?  I've always filtered this by
> using "base:jewel" in github.

Well, when we are trying to get backports merged for the "next" point 
release while the "current" one is in QE, we open PRs targeting 
jewel-next - so that's not ironclad.

But I don't really know the answer to why the milestone tag is there. 
It's what we've always populated the integration branch by. I agree it's 
not optimal because PRs can get delayed waiting for someone to set the 
milestone.

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[Nathan Cutler]

Hi John:

I believe we have all the requested CephFS fixes in, now. Do you think 
10.2.8 is ready for QE, as far as CephFS is concerned?

Nathan

On 06/14/2017 04:25 PM, John Spray wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Dan van der Ster <dan@vanderster.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Would it be possible to get these into 10.2.8?
>>
>>      http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19677
>>      http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19762
>>      http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20027
> 
> I've been a bit behind on reviewing backports lately, sorry about that.
> 
> I've merged the first two of those.  The third one had a PR that
> didn't have the cephfs label so it got missed.
> 
> Nathan, if we have time to do another pre-merge test run for jewel
> backports, then there are a few with label:cephfs and my review on,
> that would just need to go through a fs suite.
> 
> Cheers,
> John

Re: Are we ready for 10.2.8 - cephfs

[John Spray]

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@suse.cz> wrote:
> Hi John:
>
> I believe we have all the requested CephFS fixes in, now. Do you think
> 10.2.8 is ready for QE, as far as CephFS is concerned?

Yes, I think we're good.

John

>
> Nathan
>
>
> On 06/14/2017 04:25 PM, John Spray wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:49 AM, Dan van der Ster <dan@vanderster.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Would it be possible to get these into 10.2.8?
>>>
>>>      http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19677
>>>      http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/19762
>>>      http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20027
>>
>>
>> I've been a bit behind on reviewing backports lately, sorry about that.
>>
>> I've merged the first two of those.  The third one had a PR that
>> didn't have the cephfs label so it got missed.
>>
>> Nathan, if we have time to do another pre-merge test run for jewel
>> backports, then there are a few with label:cephfs and my review on,
>> that would just need to go through a fs suite.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> John