Re: [Gluster-devel] Revert of 56e5fdae (SSL change) - why?

That's true Joe. Ideally the commit should explain the reason of why it was reverted. I believe Milind is already working on this problem and he should be able to revive back the patch with the changes required to let all the tests pass. On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Joe Julian

Re: [Gluster-devel] Revert of 56e5fdae (SSL change) - why?

The point is, I believe, that one shouldn't have to go digging through external resources to find out why a commit exists. Please ensure the commit message has adequate accurate information. On 01/07/2018 07:11 PM, Atin Mukherjee wrote: Also please refer

Re: [Gluster-devel] Revert of 56e5fdae (SSL change) - why?

Also please refer http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/2017-December/054103.html . Some of the tests like ssl-cipher.t, trash.t were failing frequently in brick multiplexing enabled regression jobs. When I reverted this patch, I couldn't reproduce any of those test failures. On Mon,

Re: [Gluster-devel] Revert of 56e5fdae (SSL change) - why?

On 7 January 2018 at 18:54, Jeff Darcy wrote: > There's no explanation, or reference to one, in the commit message. In the > comments, there's a claim that seems a bit exaggerated. > > > This is causing almost all the regressions to fail. durbaility-off.t is > the most affected

[Gluster-devel] Weekly Untriaged Bugs

[...truncated 6 lines...] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1531131 / access-control: Connexion refused with port 22 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1529768 / arbiter: Disk size is incorrect according to df when an arbiter brick and data brick live on the same server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1524325 /

[Gluster-devel] Revert of 56e5fdae (SSL change) - why?

There's no explanation, or reference to one, in the commit message. In the comments, there's a claim that seems a bit exaggerated. > This is causing almost all the regressions to fail. durbaility-off.t is the > most affected test. This patch was merged on December 13. Regressions have passed