[Gluster-Maintainers] Huge AFR change for 3.8 proposed, needs careful review and explicit approval

[Niels de Vos]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 09:48:29AM +0530, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 02:27:53PM +0530, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > > On 12/12/2016 02:10 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com
> > > > <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >     We've mentioned earlier that only (small) patches for bugfixes and
> > > >     stabilization should get backported. Yet there is a patch with
> > > >     +470/-61
> > > >     lines proposed for inclusion. This is not something that is
> > normally
> > > >     suitable for backporting, so I'd like to get the opinion of several
> > > >     maintainers before it gets merged.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The patch is entirely in AFR, so in addition to Pranith, which specific
> > > maintainers would you like a review from?
> >
> > Anyone who has an opinion. We may want/need to introduce additional
> > steps to get big patches liks this backported and merged. I do not deem
> > a review of any single maintainer sufficient for bug changes like this,
> > and definitely not for patches to stable branches.
> >
> > > >       afr: allow I/O when favorite-child-policy is enabled
> > > >     http://review.gluster.org/16091 <http://review.gluster.org/16091>
> > > >
> > > >     It sounds like a serious bugfix, but I'd like to know if there is
> > any
> > > >     risk for users of a version that has this patch.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think there is any risk in taking the patch in. The bug
> > > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378547
> > > ) was raised by Ubisoft on 3.8. I can set a need-info on the BZ to see if
> > > they would be willing to test it out. If they can, and find the fix to be
> > > working, can you take the patch in?
> >
> > Yes, I would appreciate that. Reasonable additional testing of normal
> > AFR functioning would be very good too.
> >
> 
> Can we take this patch in for next 3.8.x release based on:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378547#c6 from the ubisoft
> guys who tested different cases with the fix?

Yes, that should be ok. Thanks for requesting the additional testing.

Niels


> 
> 
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Niels
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ravi
> > >
> > >
> > > >     The version for the
> > > >     master branch has only been there for 2 weeks, and the 3.9 version
> > has
> > > >     not been merged yet either.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We are awaiting netbsd regression to pass for merging it in 3.9. I will
> > > > be planning to get this in for 3.9.1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >     Thanks,
> > > >     Niels
> > > >
> > > >     _______________________________________________
> > > >     maintainers mailing list
> > > >     maintainers at gluster.org <mailto:maintainers at gluster.org>
> > > >     http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> > > >     <http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Pranith
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pranith
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161215/06892a6b/attachment.sig>