Re: hammer 0.94.10 QE status

[Sage Weil <sweil@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Nathan Cutler wrote:
> From re-reading this thread I determined that the only two outstanding issues
> are upgrade/firefly-x and rgw+centos (can anyone confirm?)
> 
> I don't think upgrade/firefly-x should be a blocker. Rationale: as of the
> jewel release, firefly clusters were supposed to be upgraded to at least
> hammer. As of the kraken release, support of hammer has been focused on
> facilitating users to upgrade from hammer to jewel. In other words, firefly
> clusters should already have been upgraded and upgrading from firefly to
> hammer is no longer supported.
> 
> As for the rgw valgrind/libtcmalloc failures on centos, I made a
> wip-hammer-baseline branch based on "hammer" but with a different SHA1 ("git
> commit --amend --reset-author") and pushed it to ceph/ceph-ci.git so Shaman
> will re-build it. This should ensure that "flavor=notcmalloc" really means
> what it says. Re-running rgw+centos on this wip-hammer-baseline branch will
> tell us more.

I do'nt think these are a blocker either.. it's a problem with the 
hammer 'notcmalloc' builds with are only for teuthology valgrind testing.

sage