[gluster-packaging] [Gluster-Maintainers] glusterfs-3.11.1 released
Niels de Vos
ndevos at redhat.com
Mon Jul 3 08:03:09 UTC 2017
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 09:09:38AM +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Niels de Vos <ndevos at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:55:15AM -0400, Shyam wrote:
> >> On 06/28/2017 09:02 AM, Niels de Vos wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 03:25:56PM +0000, Gluster Build System wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > SRC: http://bits.gluster.org/pub/gluster/glusterfs/src/glusterfs-3.11.1.tar.gz
> >> >
> >> > Packages have been built for the CentOS Storage SIG and are available
> >> > for testing. There has not been a single confirmation that 3.11.0 is
> >> > working, so there is still no 3.11 pushed to the CentOS mirrors.
> >> I am thinking who does this confirmation? We have package owners, and then
> >> package testing, but this split role does not have any owners.
> >> Thoughts or what are the expectations?
> > Anyone can send a confirmation that this works. I normally only do a
> > simple "install, create a volume and access" it. Sometimes users send me
> > their test results, and that is fine for me too.
> I fear that an open-ended "anyone can" usually indicates that nobody
> does. If the requirement that install-create_volume-access is
> mandatory for making it available on CentOS Storage SIG, what are the
> challenges in making it as part of the application build workflow? Do
> we have a similar requirement for non-RPM package sets?
It is not only testing the actual build, it is also about testing the
functionality of the repository. If there are new/updated dependencies
needed, installation of the RPMs might fail with the update. The tests
can easily be automated, and there were some volunteers to look at that.
A few more details can be found here:
Installation and upgrade testing is something that we still need to do.
Note that Fedora has Bodhi and AutoQA that gates the builds for
releasing. This does not exist on CentOS, so we rely on tests in
> Also, instead of private conversations around results of the tests as
> above, perhaps these should be redirected to this (or, any other
> appropriate) list.
We dont have a "testers" list, and until now we've always used the
packaging and maintaiers lists (both not private?) to inform about the
status of the packages before they are released. This helps with
coordinating the announcements that go out a few days later. Where would
you suggest to have these pre-announcement conversations instead?
More information about the packaging