Yeah it is a good idea. I asked him to raise a bug and we can move forward
with it.
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 9:07 PM, Joe Julian wrote:
>
> On 04/30/2017 01:13 AM, lemonni...@ulrar.net wrote:
>
>> So I was a little but luck. If I has all the hardware part, probably i
>>>
Since the vast majority of our tests run without multiplexing, I'm going
to start running regular runs of all tests with multiplexing turned on.
You can see the patch here:
https://review.gluster.org/#/c/17145/
There are currently two tests that fail with multiplexing. Note that
these are all
On 04/30/2017 01:13 AM, lemonni...@ulrar.net wrote:
So I was a little but luck. If I has all the hardware part, probably i
would be firesd after causing data loss by using a software marked as stable
Yes, we lost our data last year to this bug, and it wasn't a test cluster.
We still hear from
GlusterFS Coverity covscan results are available from
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2017-05-01-73fcf3a8
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Raghavendra Talur wrote:
> We seem to have merged all the intended patches for 3.10.2 except for
> one. While we wait for [1] to be merged, this is a last chance for
> others to point out if any patch is missing. I have verified that no
>
We seem to have merged all the intended patches for 3.10.2 except for
one. While we wait for [1] to be merged, this is a last chance for
others to point out if any patch is missing. I have verified that no
backports are missing in 3.10 when compared to 3.8.
Please visit