New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[bug:1629877] GlusterFS can be improved (clone for Gluster-5) #1001
Comments
Time: 20180917T14:44:10 |
Time: 20180917T19:30:20 2 extra symbols were in the alias file, that are not exported Change-Id: I1ab54b9fb6b0d455884fbbfd89820c60bb861e6f |
Time: 20181023T15:19:00 glusterfs-5.0 has been announced on the Gluster mailinglists [1], packages for several distributions should become available in the near future. Keep an eye on the Gluster Users mailinglist [2] and the update infrastructure for your distribution. [1] https://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/announce/2018-October/000115.html |
Time: 20190612T06:33:48 |
Time: 20190701T07:02:25 |
As discussed and agreed in the team meeting, we will be using the existing bug link pasted below to track any improvements hence closing this bug. |
URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1629877
Creator: srangana at redhat
Time: 20180917T14:39:57
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1193929 +++
I hope this bug is never fixed.
The upstream patch process requires that each patch have an associated bug ID before it can be merged. However, there is no requirement that the bug contain any information or receive any kind of signoff before the patch can proceed. As a result, many of our developers have the habit of creating such "placeholder" bugs every time they want to make a change, even if it's just a random cleanup/idea and not an actual bug fix or requested/tracked feature request. Also, any patch with the dreaded "rfc" bug ID (which would be appropriate for such changes) is unlikely to be reviewed.
This bug exists to satisfy our process requirement, without the additional negatives of clogging up our triage/tracking processes and making it appear that the code has more bugs (which would be bad) when in fact a developer had more ideas (which is generally good).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: