On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 10:58 AM, John Sirois <jsir...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@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 <jco...@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 <jsir...@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 >> > > >> > >> > >
