On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:26:54PM +0530, Milind Changire wrote:
> https://build.gluster.org/job/rackspace-netbsd7-regression-triggered/14089/consoleFull
>
>
> [08:44:20] ./tests/basic/afr/self-heald.t ..
> not ok 37 Got "0" instead of "1"
> not ok 52 Got "0" instead of "1"
> not ok 67
> Failed
Le lundi 08 février 2016 à 16:22 +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri a
écrit :
>
> On 02/08/2016 04:16 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > [Removing Milind, adding Pranith]
> >
> > On 02/08/2016 04:09 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:05:44PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> >>> The
https://build.gluster.org/job/rackspace-netbsd7-regression-triggered/14089/consoleFull
[08:44:20] ./tests/basic/afr/self-heald.t ..
not ok 37 Got "0" instead of "1"
not ok 52 Got "0" instead of "1"
not ok 67
Failed 4/83 subtests
Please advise.
--
Milind
On 02/08/2016 04:16 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
[Removing Milind, adding Pranith]
On 02/08/2016 04:09 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:05:44PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
The patch to add it to bad tests has already been merged, so I guess
this
.t's failure won't pop up
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:05:44PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> The patch to add it to bad tests has already been merged, so I guess this
> .t's failure won't pop up again.
IMo that was a bit too quick. What is the procedure to get out of the
list?
--
Emmanuel Dreyfus
m...@netbsd.org
On 02/08/2016 03:37 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:26:54PM +0530, Milind Changire wrote:
https://build.gluster.org/job/rackspace-netbsd7-regression-triggered/14089/consoleFull
[08:44:20] ./tests/basic/afr/self-heald.t ..
not ok 37 Got "0" instead of "1"
not ok 52 Got
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:26:22AM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
> Indeed, same problem. But unfortunately it is not very reproductible since
> we need to make a full week of runs to see it again. I am tempted to
> just remove the assertion.
NB: this does not fail on stock NetBSD release: the
On 02/08/2016 04:22 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 02/08/2016 04:16 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
[Removing Milind, adding Pranith]
On 02/08/2016 04:09 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:05:44PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
The patch to add it to bad tests has already
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 03:44:43PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> The .t has been added to bad tests for now @
I am note sure this is relevant: does it fails again? I am very interested
if it is reproductible.
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/13344/, so you can probably rebase your patch.
> I'm
On 02/08/2016 04:00 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:26:22AM +, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
Indeed, same problem. But unfortunately it is not very reproductible since
we need to make a full week of runs to see it again. I am tempted to
just remove the assertion.
NB: this
[Removing Milind, adding Pranith]
On 02/08/2016 04:09 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:05:44PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
The patch to add it to bad tests has already been merged, so I guess this
.t's failure won't pop up again.
IMo that was a bit too quick.
I guess
On 02/08/2016 05:04 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le lundi 08 février 2016 à 16:22 +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri a
écrit :
On 02/08/2016 04:16 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
[Removing Milind, adding Pranith]
On 02/08/2016 04:09 PM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 04:05:44PM +0530,
12 matches
Mail list logo
