aurora-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joshua Cohen <jco...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Review Request 49732: Update package scripts to 0.15.0.
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2016 00:42:47 GMT


> On July 7, 2016, 2:33 a.m., John Sirois wrote:
> > I am slightly worried the tests only seem to work after this change ... IIUC Aurora
0.15.0 should work with mesos 0.27.2 (Aurora should work with the mesos its developed against
+/- 1).
> 
> John Sirois wrote:
>     Oh, now I understand I think. You used this patch to do the 0.15.0 release, which
is in error.  The 0.15.0 release should have a >= 0.27.2 mesos constraint.
>     
>     If that makes sense, un-shipit.
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
>     That observation regarding specifying >=0.27 even though we have build against
0.28 probably correct. 
>     
>     FWIW, our previous packages have been inconsistent in that regard as well:
>     
>     * 0.12 is build against Mesos 0.25 but specifies >=0.21.1 for Debian and ==0.25
for Centos
>     * 0.13 is build against Mesos 0.26 but specifies >=0.26
>     * 0.14 is build against Mesos 0.27.2 but specifies >=0.27.2
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     > Aurora should work with the mesos its developed against
>     
>     That may or may not be true. It all depends on what we change in Aurora to bump up
the Mesos version. In 0.15.0, we upgraded Mesos to 0.28.2 that required us to treat the new
Mesos task state (KILLING). This means 0.15.0 cannot rely on 0.27.2 anymore and >= 0.28.2
seems the only logical constraint there.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     Yeah, unfortunately there's no great way to upgrade to 0.28.2 without explicitly
depending on the new `TaskState.KILLING` value. We either had to make the change I made (add
explicit support for the state to `Conversions` or we would have had to update `ConversionsTest`
to explicitly ignore that task state, either way it would require 0.28.2. I suppose we *could*
ignore it in the test by checking for `"KILLING".equals(state.getName())`. That seems a bit
hacky but it would allow us to upgrade to 0.28.2 while letting 0.15.0 still run against 0.27.x.
>     
>     Is that preferable, or are we ok with bending the rules in this instance?
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     I don't think we can shy away from the fact that Mesos upgrades may and will require
making backwards incompatible Aurora changes as far as Mesos versions go. The whole purpose
of supporting the ">=" syntax is to define the cluster upgrade as "first, upgrade Mesos
then - Aurora". Trying to support -1 version in addition to +1 will only make our lifes harder
and may even be impossible in the future (e.g.: switching from `launchTasks` to `acceptOffers`)
>     
>     John, given the above, how would like to proceed with this patch?

Yeah, we're going to have a similar issue for the 1.0 upgrade in that if we operators opt
in to GPU resources we're going to have to send a framework capability that was only recently
introduced.


- Joshua


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/#review141120
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 7, 2016, 12:30 a.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 7, 2016, 12:30 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Stephan Erb.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora-packaging
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Update package scripts to 0.15.0.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   README.md 3a7cf45034b7896c23588fed83176468ca627ebc 
>   specs/debian/control e4d23ba6190ebbd3afbb930e305d76f5b61a5dac 
>   specs/rpm/aurora.spec 7a368fd8128153a3167032727fe011a8a7457853 
>   test/deb/debian-jessie/README.md a98407b96c673eb6ca6269d646755926d51fd4ab 
>   test/deb/debian-jessie/provision.sh ed4364f69a63493d7a1fd6791ef743609c99b924 
>   test/deb/ubuntu-trusty/README.md c5579857443c73d8343a82210e34be98ad3a86da 
>   test/deb/ubuntu-trusty/provision.sh 5b4ec472a23d5d401a64a6a72743c392d048f949 
>   test/rpm/centos-7/README.md e5649015934e4714a054a5be7a83f9c333b70144 
>   test/rpm/centos-7/provision.sh 5aa88a5d86a990131cdbdae5d93aeb75a1dc7c90 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko
> 
>


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