Hi Pranith,
On 11/13/2014 06:57 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 11/13/2014 03:23 AM, Justin Clift wrote:
Hi all,
At the moment, our smoke tests in Jenkins only run on a
replicated volume. Extending that out to other volume types
should (in theory :) help catch other simple gotchas.
On 11/13/2014 10:13 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 11/13/2014 03:51 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On the other hand, I'm not sure smoke is the place to do this.
Smoke is supposed to be a *quick* test to catch *basic* errors
(e.g. source fails to build) before we devote hours to a full
Hey Jeff,
I'm trying to understand how the SSL support in socket-transport
works. I'm having a little trouble understanding it though.
Do you have any document describing how it works? Even user
documentation on how to use the feature will help.
~kaushal
On 11/13/2014 03:11 PM, Kaushal M wrote:
Hey Jeff,
I'm trying to understand how the SSL support in socket-transport
works. I'm having a little trouble understanding it though.
Do you have any document describing how it works? Even user
documentation on how to use the feature will help.
This
Cool. Thanks Vijay.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Vijay Bellur vbel...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/13/2014 03:11 PM, Kaushal M wrote:
Hey Jeff,
I'm trying to understand how the SSL support in socket-transport
works. I'm having a little trouble understanding it though.
Do you have any
Folks,
While I was looking into glusterd backlogs I could see there are few BZs
which were marked as needinfo on the reporter as the information was
not sufficient enough for further analysis and the reporter hasn't
gotten back with the required details.
Ideally we should close these bugs saying
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:43:15 +0100
Niels de Vos nde...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 04:31:38PM +0530, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
Folks,
While I was looking into glusterd backlogs I could see there are
few BZs which were marked as needinfo on the reporter as the
information was
On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:22:56 +0530
Lalatendu Mohanty lmoha...@redhat.com wrote:
snip
+1 to the idea of closing a bug if we dont get required information
in a stipulated time frame. However I would suggest a more lenient
time frame i.e. at least 4 weeks. That gives ample time for the
reporter
Hi Atin,
FMPOV, 2 weeks time looks to be good, at the same time, please give
importance for the product version it is reported. If they are into our
running stable or near versions, we can be some more flexible.
--Humble
--Humble
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Atin Mukherjee
Hi,
My patch is hitting a strange build failure in upstream regression.
The patch contains a single file in gfapi.
However the build is failing for some nfs files.
Patch : http://review.gluster.org/#/c/8455/8/
Failure Log:
10 matches
Mail list logo
