Thanks for bringing this up, Stephan. I saw you committed my packaging RB and wrongfully assumed the binaries were published too. Will follow up shortly.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Erb, Stephan <stephan....@blue-yonder.com> wrote: > This vote is still open and the packages have not been released yet. > Formally, everything looks correct to me. We should be able to proceed > here, right? > > On 12/07/16 22:54, "Erb, Stephan" <stephan....@blue-yonder.com> wrote: > > +1 > > Ran the test instructions for all three architectures. There is a minor > hiccup with the provision.sh for Debian, but nothing too serious > https://gist.github.com/StephanErb/f96f2e4038499efba4fafebada58a9a7. > > On 08/07/16 23:59, "John Sirois" <john.sir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ah yes - and that's covered in the relase notes. Sorry for the thrash. > +1 > > I was hurrying a bit to get this tested before going AFK and the lack of > packaging fixes for 0.15 on aurora-packaging master threw me. Those fixes > should make it to master IIUC. > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I have replied in https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/. The main > > purpose of 0.15.0 was to upgrade to Mesos 0.28.2 and as such we must > > build against that version. > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 7:47 PM, John Sirois <john.sir...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Jul 6, 2016 8:34 PM, "John Sirois" <john.sir...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> I missed Maxim's ~same fix here: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/ > > >> > > >> Folks will need that patch to test, which is not on master, but on the > > > 0.15.x branch of aurora-packaging. > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:22 PM, John Sirois <john.sir...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> +1 ... with minor nagging reservations. > > > > > > I updated my understanding on https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/ > which > > > changes my vote to -1. The >=0.28.2 mesos constraint does not seem to > be > > > correct / in line with our standard compatibility claims. > > > > > >>> > > >>> I could only get the packages tested out after applying the > > provision.sh > > > fixes here: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49740/ > > >>> I think the 0.15.0 release is supposed to be compatible back to mesos > > > 0.27(.2) though; thus the reservations. > > >>> I need to dig a bit more on the test failure (aurora-scheduler failed > > to > > > start on debian-jessie - did not try other platforms > > >>> before the linked RB fix), but I was wondering what other folks found > > > without the above linked RB patch. > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> All, > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I propose that we accept the following artifacts as the official deb > > >>>> and rpm packaging for Apache Aurora 0.15.0: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> https://dl.bintray.com/mkhutornenko/aurora/ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The Aurora deb and rpm packaging includes the following: > > >>>> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> > > >>>> The branch used to create the packaging is: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora-packaging.git;a=tree;hb=refs/heads/0.15.x > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The packages are available at: > > >>>> > > >>>> https://dl.bintray.com/mkhutornenko/aurora/ > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The GPG keys used to sign the packages are available at: > > >>>> > > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/aurora/KEYS > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Please download, verify, and test. Detailed test instructions are > > > available here > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > > > > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora-packaging.git;a=tree;f=test;hb=refs/heads/0.15.x > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> The vote will close on Mon Jul 11 18:55:16 PDT 2016 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> [ ] +1 Release these as the deb and rpm packages for Apache Aurora > > > 0.15.0 > > >>>> > > >>>> [ ] +0 > > >>>> > > >>>> [ ] -1 Do not release these artifacts because... > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> I would like to get the voting started off with my own +1 > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > >
