Re: [Gluster-devel] trash.t failure

2018-04-17 Thread Nigel Babu 
I've reverted the original patch entirely. Our policy is to either mark the
test as bad or revert the entire patch. This seems to have caused multiple
failures in the test system, so I've reverted the entire patch. Please
re-land the patch with any fixes as a fresh review.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Atin Mukherjee  wrote:

> commit d206fab73f6815c927a84171ee9361c9b31557b1
> Author: Kinglong Mee 
> Date:   Mon Apr 9 08:33:51 2018 -0400
>
> storage/posix: add pgfid in readdirp if needed
>
> Change-Id: I6745428fd9d4e402bf2cad52cee8ab46b7fd822f
> fixes: bz#1560319
> Signed-off-by: Kinglong Mee 
>
>
> The above commit has caused (thanks to Amar for bisect!) trash.t test in
> upstream CI to fail very frequently. As per fstat.gluster.org (refer :
> https://bit.ly/2qGcSP6) this test has failed 17 times in master branch in
> last 4 days. Given we're nearing GlusterFS 4.1 branching and there're few
> important patches blocked in the regression pipeline queue, I've sent a
> patch https://review.gluster.org/19894  to mark trash.t as bad for now as
> a temporary arrangement.
>
> I request Kinglong and the owner of trash feature to debug this issue and
> send a fix which can revert back my change.
>
>
> ___
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>



-- 
nigelb
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] Regression with brick multiplex on demand

2018-04-17 Thread Atin Mukherjee 
Super useful. Thanks Nigel (and Amar for the idea).

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Nigel Babu  wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> In the past if you had a patch that was fixing a brick multiplex failure,
> you couldn't test whether it actually fixed brick multiplex failures
> easily. You had two options:
>
> * Create a new review where you turn on brick multiplex via the code and
> also apply your patch. Mark a -1 for this review and iterate until tests
> passed.
> * Merge the patch and pray.
>
> Now on any patch that you want brick multiplex triggered, just add comment
> "run brick-mux regression" and it will trigger a run and post results to
> the review. This is a non-voting job. This should not mess up any votes.
> Please file a bug if it does.
>
> --
> nigelb
>
> ___
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

[Gluster-devel] Coverity covscan for 2018-04-17-b2f94254 (master branch)

2018-04-17 Thread staticanalysis 
GlusterFS Coverity covscan results are available from
http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2018-04-17-b2f94254
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

Re: [Gluster-devel] Agenda for Maintainer's meeting tomorrow (18th April).

2018-04-17 Thread Amar Tumballi 
Please note that This meeting involves 2 big topics related to
developers/community, please try to attend the meeting.

1. Coding style (which can be very personal for many developers, great to
agree and move forward on this).
2. GPL cure discussions
   - The link given explains most of it. But if people need further help
understanding the benefits/impact of this, we can arrange for a legal
presence to explain things out (Best effort, as it depends on their
availability)


On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Amar Tumballi  wrote:

> Meeting date: 14/18/2018 (April 18th, 2018), 19:30 IST, 14:00 UTC, 10:00
> EDT BJ Link
>
>- Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/205933580
>- Download:
>
> Attendance
>
>-
>
> Agenda
>
>-
>
>Format change proposal:
>- Check the bug 
>   - Provide feedbacks
>  - We want to do a big bang format change with clang-format.
>  - Which format should we start with as base?
>  Google/LLVM/Mozilla/Webkit/Chromium
> - Samples present in repo
> . *NOTE*:
> Samples generated with indent as 4 spaces.
> - Google Style Guide
> 
> - LLVM Style Guide 
> - Mozilla Style Guide
> 
> 
> - WebKit style guide
> 
> - Chromium style guide
> 
> 
>  - When do we want to make this change? Before the 4.1 branching
>  seems like a good time to make vast changes.
>
>
>
>-
>
>Gluster’s Adoption of *GPL cure period enforcement*
>- What is it?
>   
> 
>   - How to go about implementing it?
>  - Intended patch here
>  
> 
>  - The Commitment looks like this
>  
>
>
>
>-
>
>Automation Update:
>- Run regressions with brick multiplex directly from Gerrit now with a
>   keyword rather than hacky temporary review requests. Keyword is ‘run
>   brick-mux regression’. Example: https://review.
>   gluster.org/#/c/19734/
>   - More automation moving to Python so we have the ability to write
>   unit tests. If you are going to write a complicated shell script as a 
> test
>   runner, please get approval from CI component maintainers.
>   - We’ve been testing Facebook’s distributed test runner and have
>   managed to get it working. Time for regression drops with every new 
> machine
>   added to the pool. Targetting a few weeks to bring it to production.
>   - Github Label check is now enforced:
>  - Need help from others to identify the needs for going to give
>  the flag.
>  - As ‘ndevos’ asked, we need to highlight this in Developer
>  Guide and other places in documentation.
>  - Can we fix the ‘gluter spec’ format and ask people to fill the
>  github issues in that format? So that it becomes easier to give the 
> flags.
>   -
>
>Regression failures
>- trash.t and nfs-mount-auth.t are failing frequently.
>   - git bisect shows https://review.gluster.org/19837 as possible
>   suspect.
>   - Need to resolve soon as some critical patches are failing
>   regression.
>-
>
>Release timelines:
>- Can we extend branching out by a week or two? to compansate for
>   github flag enforcement?
>  - Target GA date should remain same.
>   -
>
>Round Table:
>- [Name] Note
>
> 
> -
>
> Feel free to add more topics before meeting @ https://hackmd.io/yTC-
> un5XT6KUB9V37LG6OQ?both
>
>
>


-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

[Gluster-devel] Agenda for Maintainer's meeting tomorrow (18th April).

2018-04-17 Thread Amar Tumballi 
Meeting date: 14/18/2018 (April 18th, 2018), 19:30 IST, 14:00 UTC, 10:00 EDT
BJ Link

   - Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/205933580
   - Download:

Attendance

   -

Agenda

   -

   Format change proposal:
   - Check the bug 
  - Provide feedbacks
 - We want to do a big bang format change with clang-format.
 - Which format should we start with as base?
 Google/LLVM/Mozilla/Webkit/Chromium
- Samples present in repo
. *NOTE*:
Samples generated with indent as 4 spaces.
- Google Style Guide

- LLVM Style Guide 
- Mozilla Style Guide


- WebKit style guide 
- Chromium style guide


 - When do we want to make this change? Before the 4.1 branching
 seems like a good time to make vast changes.



   -

   Gluster’s Adoption of *GPL cure period enforcement*
   - What is it?
  
  - How to go about implementing it?
 - Intended patch here
 

 - The Commitment looks like this
 



   -

   Automation Update:
   - Run regressions with brick multiplex directly from Gerrit now with a
  keyword rather than hacky temporary review requests. Keyword is ‘run
  brick-mux regression’. Example: https://review.gluster.org/#/c/19734/
  - More automation moving to Python so we have the ability to write
  unit tests. If you are going to write a complicated shell script
as a test
  runner, please get approval from CI component maintainers.
  - We’ve been testing Facebook’s distributed test runner and have
  managed to get it working. Time for regression drops with every
new machine
  added to the pool. Targetting a few weeks to bring it to production.
  - Github Label check is now enforced:
 - Need help from others to identify the needs for going to give
 the flag.
 - As ‘ndevos’ asked, we need to highlight this in Developer Guide
 and other places in documentation.
 - Can we fix the ‘gluter spec’ format and ask people to fill the
 github issues in that format? So that it becomes easier to
give the flags.
  -

   Regression failures
   - trash.t and nfs-mount-auth.t are failing frequently.
  - git bisect shows https://review.gluster.org/19837 as possible
  suspect.
  - Need to resolve soon as some critical patches are failing
  regression.
   -

   Release timelines:
   - Can we extend branching out by a week or two? to compansate for github
  flag enforcement?
 - Target GA date should remain same.
  -

   Round Table:
   - [Name] Note


-

Feel free to add more topics before meeting @
https://hackmd.io/yTC-un5XT6KUB9V37LG6OQ?both
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

[Gluster-devel] Fwd: [Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564149] Agree upon a coding standard, and automate check for this in smoke

2018-04-17 Thread Amar Tumballi 
All,

Can we have more attention to this bug and provide inputs from your
experience in different project?

This would save us lot of time in reviewing, and also make sure our
contributors are sending code which is uniform regardless of their editor
settings.

Expectation is, we come up with an agreed .clang-format file.

-Amar

-- Forwarded message --
From: 
Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:41 PM
Subject: [Gluster-infra] [Bug 1564149] Agree upon a coding standard, and
automate check for this in smoke
To: gluster-in...@gluster.org


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564149



--- Comment #9 from Amar Tumballi  ---
(In reply to Nigel Babu from comment #7)
> Alright. So we have agreement that this is a good idea. How do we want to
> implement this? As a check or as a pre-commit hook?

This is a multi-step process!

0. Team agrees on a style and a config file representing the style.
1. Commit the coding style guide to codebase and make changes in rfc.sh to
use
it.
2. 'gluster-ant' commits a single large patch for whole codebase with a
standard clang-format style. (This should be only changes which happened
due to
clang-format, and no other changes should be in the patch. This can crash
gerrit if we send it to review.
  -> NOTE: This change can be as big as moving gluster repo from tla to
git, as
we have now 2 repositories, 'historic' and 'glusterfs' to understand the
actual
source of a line, if one needs 'git blame'.

3. Have the job ready to check the patch with the config file, on the server
side (along with a pre-check in rfc.sh to warn people), this should be a
Voting
job in smoke.

4. We all live happily ever after.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
token.cgi?t=rNXvC1NMQK=cc_unsubscribe
___
Gluster-infra mailing list
gluster-in...@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-infra



-- 
Amar Tumballi (amarts)
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

[Gluster-devel] Regression with brick multiplex on demand

2018-04-17 Thread Nigel Babu 
Hello folks,

In the past if you had a patch that was fixing a brick multiplex failure,
you couldn't test whether it actually fixed brick multiplex failures
easily. You had two options:

* Create a new review where you turn on brick multiplex via the code and
also apply your patch. Mark a -1 for this review and iterate until tests
passed.
* Merge the patch and pray.

Now on any patch that you want brick multiplex triggered, just add comment
"run brick-mux regression" and it will trigger a run and post results to
the review. This is a non-voting job. This should not mess up any votes.
Please file a bug if it does.

-- 
nigelb
___
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel