aurora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 0.12.0 RC status
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2016 17:23:02 GMT
Just to set expectations straight on my side, I won't be able to spend time
on this until next week. I am planning to do a live cluster restore to
better understand and document all findings.

To reiterate what I mentioned above, I don't think this should be a blocker
for the release. The restore-from-backup is a very environment sensitive
procedure and our instructions should be treated as general guidance rather
than a precise set of steps to follow.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:10 AM, John Sirois <jsirois@apache.org> wrote:

> 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