* rbd-mirror related jewel backports @ 2016-08-10 9:07 Loic Dachary 2016-08-10 20:14 ` Jason Dillaman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-10 9:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mykola Golub; +Cc: Ceph Development Hi Mykola, There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 Thanks in advance for your guidance ! -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports 2016-08-10 9:07 rbd-mirror related jewel backports Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-10 20:14 ` Jason Dillaman 2016-08-10 21:00 ` Loic Dachary 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jason Dillaman @ 2016-08-10 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Loic Dachary; +Cc: Mykola Golub, Ceph Development Loic, If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: > Hi Mykola, > > There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 > > Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd > > would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 > > What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. > > There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 > > Thanks in advance for your guidance ! > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > > -- > 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 -- Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports 2016-08-10 20:14 ` Jason Dillaman @ 2016-08-10 21:00 ` Loic Dachary 2016-08-11 13:22 ` Jason Dillaman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-10 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dillaman; +Cc: Mykola Golub, Ceph Development On 10/08/2016 22:14, Jason Dillaman wrote: > Loic, > > If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. That would be great. Alternatively, if that's less time consuming for you, just suggest a backport order and I'll figure it out. Cheers > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >> Hi Mykola, >> >> There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. >> >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 >> >> Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd >> >> would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically >> >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 >> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 >> >> What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. >> >> There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. >> >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 >> >> Thanks in advance for your guidance ! >> >> -- >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports 2016-08-10 21:00 ` Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-11 13:22 ` Jason Dillaman 2016-08-11 13:58 ` Loic Dachary 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jason Dillaman @ 2016-08-11 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Loic Dachary; +Cc: Mykola Golub, Ceph Development No worries. My usual routine just involves pulling up master and jewel branch merge logs for all RBD-related subdirectories in two terminals (for PR merge timeline reference), pulling up the original PR to backport, and then just cherry-pick until a conflict is hit. When that happens, I locate which previous PR made the conflicting change and cherry-pick it into the same backport branch. With this technique, you'll end up with PRs with the same cherry-picked commits. You'll be able to cleanly merge them into a testing branch, but when it comes time to merge into the jewel branch you'll need to rebase some PRs to automatically strip out the duplicate cherry-picks. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: > > > On 10/08/2016 22:14, Jason Dillaman wrote: >> Loic, >> >> If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. > > That would be great. Alternatively, if that's less time consuming for you, just suggest a backport order and I'll figure it out. > > Cheers > >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >>> Hi Mykola, >>> >>> There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. >>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 >>> >>> Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd >>> >>> would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically >>> >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 >>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 >>> >>> What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. >>> >>> There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. >>> >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 >>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 >>> >>> Thanks in advance for your guidance ! >>> >>> -- >>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports 2016-08-11 13:22 ` Jason Dillaman @ 2016-08-11 13:58 ` Loic Dachary 2016-08-11 15:01 ` Jason Dillaman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-11 13:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dillaman; +Cc: Mykola Golub, Ceph Development I can try to do that, it is simple enough. Because I'm not very familiar with the code base, it is entirely possible that I end up cherry-picking a lot more than what is reasonable when doing that. It is sometime non trivial to figure out when to stop. Who knows: I may end up cherry-picking *everything* from master :-) I'll call for help if it drifts too much. Cheers On 11/08/2016 15:22, Jason Dillaman wrote: > No worries. > > My usual routine just involves pulling up master and jewel branch > merge logs for all RBD-related subdirectories in two terminals (for PR > merge timeline reference), pulling up the original PR to backport, and > then just cherry-pick until a conflict is hit. When that happens, I > locate which previous PR made the conflicting change and cherry-pick > it into the same backport branch. > > With this technique, you'll end up with PRs with the same > cherry-picked commits. You'll be able to cleanly merge them into a > testing branch, but when it comes time to merge into the jewel branch > you'll need to rebase some PRs to automatically strip out the > duplicate cherry-picks. > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/08/2016 22:14, Jason Dillaman wrote: >>> Loic, >>> >>> If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. >> >> That would be great. Alternatively, if that's less time consuming for you, just suggest a backport order and I'll figure it out. >> >> Cheers >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Mykola, >>>> >>>> There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. >>>> >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 >>>> >>>> Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at >>>> >>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd >>>> >>>> would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically >>>> >>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 >>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 >>>> >>>> What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. >>>> >>>> There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. >>>> >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 >>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance for your guidance ! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > > > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports 2016-08-11 13:58 ` Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-11 15:01 ` Jason Dillaman 2016-08-12 9:12 ` Loic Dachary 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jason Dillaman @ 2016-08-11 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Loic Dachary; +Cc: Mykola Golub, Ceph Development OK, that's fine with me. The only ones left on your original list are (in order): http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 (master 10484) (Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:14:54 +0300) http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 (master 10574) (Sun, 7 Aug 2016 13:33:45 +0300) http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 (master 10613) (Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:18:49 +0300) On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: > I can try to do that, it is simple enough. Because I'm not very familiar with the code base, it is entirely possible that I end up cherry-picking a lot more than what is reasonable when doing that. It is sometime non trivial to figure out when to stop. Who knows: I may end up cherry-picking *everything* from master :-) I'll call for help if it drifts too much. > > Cheers > > On 11/08/2016 15:22, Jason Dillaman wrote: >> No worries. >> >> My usual routine just involves pulling up master and jewel branch >> merge logs for all RBD-related subdirectories in two terminals (for PR >> merge timeline reference), pulling up the original PR to backport, and >> then just cherry-pick until a conflict is hit. When that happens, I >> locate which previous PR made the conflicting change and cherry-pick >> it into the same backport branch. >> >> With this technique, you'll end up with PRs with the same >> cherry-picked commits. You'll be able to cleanly merge them into a >> testing branch, but when it comes time to merge into the jewel branch >> you'll need to rebase some PRs to automatically strip out the >> duplicate cherry-picks. >> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 10/08/2016 22:14, Jason Dillaman wrote: >>>> Loic, >>>> >>>> If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. >>> >>> That would be great. Alternatively, if that's less time consuming for you, just suggest a backport order and I'll figure it out. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >>>>> Hi Mykola, >>>>> >>>>> There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. >>>>> >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 >>>>> >>>>> Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd >>>>> >>>>> would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 >>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 >>>>> >>>>> What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. >>>>> >>>>> There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. >>>>> >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 >>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance for your guidance ! >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >> >> >> > > -- > Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre -- Jason ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: rbd-mirror related jewel backports 2016-08-11 15:01 ` Jason Dillaman @ 2016-08-12 9:12 ` Loic Dachary 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Loic Dachary @ 2016-08-12 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: dillaman; +Cc: Mykola Golub, Ceph Development Hi Jason, On 11/08/2016 17:01, Jason Dillaman wrote: > OK, that's fine with me. The only ones left on your original list are > (in order): Excellent, that makes our work a lot easier :-) I'll start testing https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10678 and once merged it will clear 6 backports. > > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 (master 10484) (Tue, 2 Aug 2016 > 20:14:54 +0300) > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 (master 10574) (Sun, 7 Aug 2016 > 13:33:45 +0300) > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 (master 10613) (Tue, 9 Aug 2016 > 16:18:49 +0300) > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >> I can try to do that, it is simple enough. Because I'm not very familiar with the code base, it is entirely possible that I end up cherry-picking a lot more than what is reasonable when doing that. It is sometime non trivial to figure out when to stop. Who knows: I may end up cherry-picking *everything* from master :-) I'll call for help if it drifts too much. >> >> Cheers >> >> On 11/08/2016 15:22, Jason Dillaman wrote: >>> No worries. >>> >>> My usual routine just involves pulling up master and jewel branch >>> merge logs for all RBD-related subdirectories in two terminals (for PR >>> merge timeline reference), pulling up the original PR to backport, and >>> then just cherry-pick until a conflict is hit. When that happens, I >>> locate which previous PR made the conflicting change and cherry-pick >>> it into the same backport branch. >>> >>> With this technique, you'll end up with PRs with the same >>> cherry-picked commits. You'll be able to cleanly merge them into a >>> testing branch, but when it comes time to merge into the jewel branch >>> you'll need to rebase some PRs to automatically strip out the >>> duplicate cherry-picks. >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/08/2016 22:14, Jason Dillaman wrote: >>>>> Loic, >>>>> >>>>> If you want, I can create the backport PRs for those tickets. >>>> >>>> That would be great. Alternatively, if that's less time consuming for you, just suggest a backport order and I'll figure it out. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Loic Dachary <loic@dachary.org> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Mykola, >>>>>> >>>>>> There are seven rbd-mirror related backports which do not cherry-pick cleanly. I've not looked at each of them yet and I would very much appreciate your advice about the best way to proceed. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16511 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16512 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16658 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16701 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16747 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16902 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16978 >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe they should be cherry-picked in a specific order in order to avoid conflicts ? For instance, maybe one of the pending backports that you can see at >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3Ajewel+label%3Arbd >>>>>> >>>>>> would avoid some of the conflicts if merged ? I'm thinking specifically >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10646 >>>>>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/10644 >>>>>> >>>>>> What I'm looking for, ideally, is a way to order the cherry-picks to avoid any conflict. That may involve backporting a few additional pull requests (for instance when the type of an argument changes from int64_t to uint64_t, that creates a lot of potential conflicts and backporting that change could help, even if it is not required to fix a given bug. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are three backports that also do not apply because of a conflict but do not seem to be related to rbd-mirror. Unless you advise otherwise, I'll attempt to resolve these individually and assume there is complex interaction with other backports. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16950 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16904 >>>>>> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/16735 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks in advance for your guidance ! >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre > > > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-08-12 9:12 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-08-10 9:07 rbd-mirror related jewel backports Loic Dachary 2016-08-10 20:14 ` Jason Dillaman 2016-08-10 21:00 ` Loic Dachary 2016-08-11 13:22 ` Jason Dillaman 2016-08-11 13:58 ` Loic Dachary 2016-08-11 15:01 ` Jason Dillaman 2016-08-12 9:12 ` Loic Dachary
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.