On 07/04/2014 11:20 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master
On 07/04/2014 12:00 PM, Santosh Pradhan wrote:
Thanks guys for looking into this. I am just wondering how this passed
the regression before Niels could merged this in? Good part is test
case needs modification not code ;)
There seems to be some bug in our regression testing code. Even though
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Santosh Pradhan sprad...@redhat.com wrote:
Thanks guys for looking into this. I am just wondering how this passed the
regression before Niels could merged this in? Good part is test case needs
modification not code ;)
We need a single maintainer for test cases
There seems to be some bug in our regression testing code. Even though the
regression failed it gave the verdict as SUCCESS
http://build.gluster.org/job/rackspace-regression-2GB-triggered/97/consoleFull
This was fixed by Justin Clift recently
--
Religious confuse piety with mere ritual, the
On 07/04/2014 12:06 PM, Harshavardhana wrote:
There seems to be some bug in our regression testing code. Even though the
regression failed it gave the verdict as SUCCESS
http://build.gluster.org/job/rackspace-regression-2GB-triggered/97/consoleFull
This was fixed by Justin Clift recently
All
On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 11:51:45AM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:20 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
On 07/04/2014 12:04 PM, Harshavardhana wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Santosh Pradhan sprad...@redhat.com wrote:
Thanks guys for looking into this. I am just wondering how this passed the
regression before Niels could merged this in? Good part is test case needs
modification not code
On 04/07/2014, at 7:30 AM, Santosh Pradhan wrote:
Thanks guys for looking into this. I am just wondering how this passed the
regression before Niels could merged this in?
It was due to stupidity on my part. ;)
Was adjusting the bash script in jenkins the other day, attempting
to get the
On 04/07/2014, at 7:34 AM, Harshavardhana wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Santosh Pradhan sprad...@redhat.com wrote:
Thanks guys for looking into this. I am just wondering how this passed the
regression before Niels could merged this in? Good part is test case needs
modification not
Hi Niels/ Santosh,
tests/bugs/bug-830665.t is consistently failing on 3.5 branch:
not ok 17 Got *.redhat.com instead of \*.redhat.com
not ok 19 Got 192.168.10.[1-5] instead of 192.168.10.\[1-5]
and seems to be introduced by http://review.gluster.org/#/c/8223/
Could you please look into it?
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master where it succeeds. Looks like
*match_subnet_v4() changes in master need to be backported to 3.5 as
On 07/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master where it succeeds. Looks like
*match_subnet_v4()
On 07/04/2014 11:19 AM, Ravishankar N wrote:
On 07/04/2014 11:09 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
Ravi,
I already sent a patch for it in the morning at
http://review.gluster.com/8233
Review please :-)
830665.t is identical in master where it succeeds. Looks like
*match_subnet_v4() changes
13 matches
Mail list logo
