aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sirois <jsir...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 0.12.0 RC status
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2016 16:10:34 GMT
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:58 AM, John Sirois <jsirois@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <maxim@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to having 1603 and 1601 as blockers. I am planning to work on 1603
>> today.
>>
>> As for 1605, I don't believe it's a blocker given that all findings are
>> already documented in the ticket.
>>
>
> I went through a recovery using the guide and hit issues that don't square
> with the description of corrections described in AURORA-1605 nor the new
> `--bypass-leader-redirect` capability introduced to aurora_admin in
> AURORA-1601.
> I suspect this can be explained by me not knowing what I'm doing!  That
> said, unless I'm being especially dumb here, neither will the the 1st time
> restorer.
>
> I'll wait for you to close out AURORA-1603 to signal an OK on the
> technical issue that necessitated the restore in the 1st place and I'd like
> to block on some feedback on my experience restoring documented in
> AURORA-1605 before making up my mind on AURORA-1605 being a release
> blocker.  It does seem to me we should have useable restore docs as a high
> priority, but if they've been broken in large ways for some time, I might
> be convinced that AURORA-1605 is a valid 0.13.0 release blocker but not
> 0.12.0.
>

Alright - Maxim has closed out AURORA-1603 and only AURORA-1605 remains.
I'd still like to block on that if someone can devote some time in the next
2 business days to running through the docs and correcting / reviewing the
issues I had with the docs as noted in the issue.
If I have no feedback on the status of AURORA-1605 by the morning (MST) of
Monday February 8th, I'll take that a silent disapproval of the block and
proceed to cut 0.12.0-rc3.


>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Joshua Cohen <jcohen@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd only consider item 1 to be a blocker to 0.12.0, but 2 and 3 should
>> be
>> > relatively quick so in general this sounds like a reasonable plan of
>> action
>> > to me.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:52 AM, John Sirois <jsirois@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Although the last blocker raised for the 0.12.0 RC series has been
>> > resolved
>> > > [1], it looks like resolution of several issues related to rolling
>> back
>> > to
>> > > 0.11.0 are required to cut the next RC:
>> > > 1. "Scheduler fails to start after rollback":
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1603
>> > > 2. "Add a flag to disable the HTTP redirect to the leader":
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1601
>> > > 3. "Update recovery docs to reflect changes":
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1605
>> > >
>> > > These issues fall into 2 classes:
>> > > Item 1 above needs to fix the immediate problem of rolling back to
>> > 0.11.0;
>> > > although there may be more changes to process, tooling and code to
>> > support
>> > > the problem better going forward.
>> > > Items 2 & 3 address tooling & procedure that support rollback.
>> > >
>> > > It looks like Maxim has claimed item 1/AURORA-1603 and Joshua is
>> working
>> > > item 2/AURORA-1601.  I assume one of Maxim, Joshua or Zameer will
>> tackle
>> > > item 3/AURORA-1605 to update rollback docs with what they learned
>> rolling
>> > > back.
>> > >
>> > > If I have any of this wrong, please speak up; otherwise I'll be
>> cutting
>> > the
>> > > next 0.12.0 RC3 when the above 3 issues are resolved.
>> > >
>> > > [1] "Identity.role is still used in the UI leading to duplicate
>> instances
>> > > on job page": https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1604
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message