Skip to content
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

UPSTREAM: 37986: Add clusterid, an optional parameter to storageclass. #12556

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 20, 2017

Conversation

humblec
Copy link
Contributor

@humblec humblec commented Jan 19, 2017

Signed-off-by: Humble Chirammal [email protected]

@humblec
Copy link
Contributor Author

humblec commented Jan 19, 2017

@childsb @rootfs @jsafrane PTAL.

@rootfs
Copy link
Member

rootfs commented Jan 19, 2017

@childsb @screeley44

@ncdc
Copy link
Contributor

ncdc commented Jan 19, 2017

Do you need this in 1.5 or can it wait until 1.6?

@eparis
Copy link
Member

eparis commented Jan 19, 2017

he wants it in 1.5

if p.provisioningConfig.clusterId != "" {
clusterIds = dstrings.Split(p.clusterId, ",")
glog.V(4).Infof("glusterfs: provided clusterids: %v", clusterIds)
}
gid64 := int64(gid)
volumeReq := &gapi.VolumeCreateRequest{Size: sz, Clusters: clusterIds, Gid: gid64, Durability: gapi.VolumeDurabilityInfo{Type: durabilityType, Replicate: gapi.ReplicaDurability{Replica: replicaCount}}}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

do we want to implement the recent bug fix/change in Kube kubernetes/kubernetes#39844

so we can use the built volumeType from parseClassParameters?

volumeReq := &gapi.VolumeCreateRequest{Size: sz, Clusters: clusterIds, Gid: gid64, Durability: p.volumeType}

Copy link
Contributor Author

@humblec humblec Jan 19, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@screeley44 no. I am still not convinced on that fix :( . We will have a discussion on this and act accordingly.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@humblec - fair enough, but I'm wondering why are we building the volumeType in the parseClassParameters if we will not use that config object?

@humblec
Copy link
Contributor Author

humblec commented Jan 19, 2017

@ncdc yes, as @eparis said, we would like to have it in 3.5. Thanks!

@rootfs
Copy link
Member

rootfs commented Jan 19, 2017

LGTM

@screeley44 @humblec if upstream 39844 is needed, can you open follow up pr?

@wongma7
Copy link
Contributor

wongma7 commented Jan 19, 2017

lgtm

@childsb
Copy link
Contributor

childsb commented Jan 19, 2017

[test]

@humblec
Copy link
Contributor Author

humblec commented Jan 19, 2017

@rootfs sure.. I am discussing with @screeley44 . Will backport it accordingly.

@rootfs
Copy link
Member

rootfs commented Jan 19, 2017

please hold merge.

@rootfs
Copy link
Member

rootfs commented Jan 19, 2017

lgtm

@childsb
Copy link
Contributor

childsb commented Jan 19, 2017

talked with humble and hchen, both are g2g on this now. PR looks good and is merged upstream. thanks guys.

[merge]

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-bot commented Jan 19, 2017

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/merge SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/13049/) (Image: devenv-rhel7_5730)

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin merge up to 4947de6

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

[Test]ing while waiting on the merge queue

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Evaluated for origin test up to 4947de6

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

continuous-integration/openshift-jenkins/test SUCCESS (https://ci.openshift.redhat.com/jenkins/job/test_pr_origin/13049/) (Base Commit: b2508ea)

@openshift-bot openshift-bot merged commit 2a936b6 into openshift:master Jan 20, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants