[Gluster-devel] Coverity covscan for 2018-07-30-4d3c62e7 (master branch)
GlusterFS Coverity covscan results for the master branch are available from http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/master/glusterfs-coverity/2018-07-30-4d3c62e7/ Coverity covscan results for other active branches are also available at http://download.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/static-analysis/ ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] FreeBSD smoke test may fail for older changes, rebase needed
On 07/28/2018 12:45 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote: >> This Friday argp-standalone got installed on the FreeBSD Jenkins >> slave(s). With the library available, we can now drop the bundled and >> unmaintained contrib/argp-standlone/ from our glusterfs sources. >> >> Unfortunately building on FreeBSD fails if the header/library is >> installed. This has been corrected with https://review.gluster.org/20581 >> but that means changes posted in Gerrit may need a rebase to include the >> fix for building on FreeBSD. >> >> I think I have rebased all related changes that did not have negative >> comments asking for corrections/improvement. In case I missed a change, >> please rebase your patch so the smoke test runs again. >> >> Sorry for any inconvenience that this caused, >> Niels > > It just occured to me that the argp-standalone installation also affects > the release-4.1 and release-3.12 branches. Jiffin, Shyam, do you want to > cherry-pick https://review.gluster.org/20581 to fix that, or do you > prefer an alternative that always uses the bundled version of the > library? The outcome is to get existing maintained release branches building and working on FreeBSD, would that be correct? If so I think we can use the cherry-picked version, the changes seem mostly straight forward, and it is possibly easier to maintain. Although, I have to ask, what is the downside of not taking it in at all? If it is just FreeBSD, then can we live with the same till release- is out? Finally, thanks for checking as the patch is not a simple bug-fix backport. > > Niels > ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] Release 5: Master branch health report (Week of 30th July)
On 07/24/2018 03:12 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > 1) master branch health checks (weekly, till branching) > - Expect every Monday a status update on various tests runs See https://build.gluster.org/job/nightly-master/ for a report on various nightly and periodic jobs on master. RED: 1. Nightly regression (3/6 failed) - Tests that reported failure: ./tests/00-geo-rep/georep-basic-dr-rsync.t ./tests/bugs/core/bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t ./tests/bugs/replicate/bug-1586020-mark-dirty-for-entry-txn-on-quorum-failure.t ./tests/bugs/distribute/bug-1122443.t - Tests that needed a retry: ./tests/00-geo-rep/georep-basic-dr-tarssh.t ./tests/bugs/glusterd/quorum-validation.t 2. Regression with multiplex (cores and test failures) 3. line-coverage (cores and test failures) - Tests that failed: ./tests/bugs/core/bug-1432542-mpx-restart-crash.t (patch https://review.gluster.org/20568 does not fix the timeout entirely, as can be seen in this run, https://build.gluster.org/job/line-coverage/401/consoleFull ) Calling out to contributors to take a look at various failures, and post the same as bugs AND to the lists (so that duplication is avoided) to get this to a GREEN status. GREEN: 1. cpp-check 2. RPM builds IGNORE (for now): 1. clang scan (@nigel, this job requires clang warnings to be fixed to go green, right?) Shyam ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] FreeBSD smoke test may fail for older changes, rebase needed
> > The outcome is to get existing maintained release branches building and > working on FreeBSD, would that be correct? > > If so I think we can use the cherry-picked version, the changes seem > mostly straight forward, and it is possibly easier to maintain. > > Although, I have to ask, what is the downside of not taking it in at > all? If it is just FreeBSD, then can we live with the same till release- > is out? > > Finally, thanks for checking as the patch is not a simple bug-fix backport. > > We also have the option of turning off FreeBSD builds for previous release branches. If you choose to not take the patches in to release branches. -- nigelb ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
Re: [Gluster-devel] FreeBSD smoke test may fail for older changes, rebase needed
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 02:44:57PM -0400, Shyam Ranganathan wrote: > On 07/28/2018 12:45 PM, Niels de Vos wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Niels de Vos wrote: > >> This Friday argp-standalone got installed on the FreeBSD Jenkins > >> slave(s). With the library available, we can now drop the bundled and > >> unmaintained contrib/argp-standlone/ from our glusterfs sources. > >> > >> Unfortunately building on FreeBSD fails if the header/library is > >> installed. This has been corrected with https://review.gluster.org/20581 > >> but that means changes posted in Gerrit may need a rebase to include the > >> fix for building on FreeBSD. > >> > >> I think I have rebased all related changes that did not have negative > >> comments asking for corrections/improvement. In case I missed a change, > >> please rebase your patch so the smoke test runs again. > >> > >> Sorry for any inconvenience that this caused, > >> Niels > > > > It just occured to me that the argp-standalone installation also affects > > the release-4.1 and release-3.12 branches. Jiffin, Shyam, do you want to > > cherry-pick https://review.gluster.org/20581 to fix that, or do you > > prefer an alternative that always uses the bundled version of the > > library? > > The outcome is to get existing maintained release branches building and > working on FreeBSD, would that be correct? 'working' in the way that they were earlier. I do not know of any (automated or manual) tests that verify the correct functioning. It is build tested only. I think. > If so I think we can use the cherry-picked version, the changes seem > mostly straight forward, and it is possibly easier to maintain. It is straight forward, but does add a new requirement on a library that should get installed on the system. This is not something that we normally allow during a stable release. > Although, I have to ask, what is the downside of not taking it in at > all? If it is just FreeBSD, then can we live with the same till release- > is out? Yes, it is 'just' FreeBSD build testing. Users should still be able to build the stable releases on FreeBSD as long as they do not install argp-standalone. In that case the bundled version will be used as the stable releases still have that in their tree. If the patch does not get merged, it will cause the smoke tests on FreeBSD to fail. As Nigel mentions, it is possible to disable this test for the stable branches. An alternative would be to fix the build process, and optionally use the bundled library in case it is not installed on the system. This is what we normally would have done, but it seems to have been broken in the case of FreeBSD + argp-standalone. Niels > Finally, thanks for checking as the patch is not a simple bug-fix backport. > > > > > Niels > > signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@gluster.org https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
