+1 to pulling it (and related release notes) from 2.11.0. We should start a separate thread to re-think options for 2.12+
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that given what we've learned today, we should pull the feature > from 2.11 and re-think our options for implementing it. > > Michael > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Bihan Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Our initial assumption of pulp_workers records being cleaned up when >> pulp_celerybeat is down is false. >> The pulp_workers clean up [0] is being done in celerybeat [1] and not >> with a SIGTERM handler. >> >> What this means is that if `systemctl stop pulp_celerybeat` is ran before >> `systemctl stop pulp_workers` our current pulp-manage-db logic will >> erroneously display the user prompt. >> >> Since this is the case I think we should remove the pulp-manage-db >> running worker detection feature for this release (but keep the celerybeat >> cleanup) and look into other solutions. >> >> >> [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/server/pulp/ser >> ver/async/worker_watcher.py#L85-L105 >> [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/server/pulp/ser >> ver/async/scheduler.py#L75 >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 to reopening 2468 and excluding pulp_celerybeat records from the >>> check, and holding 2.11 until this is resolved >>> >>> Note that ^ would allow us to remove the known issues problem from the >>> release notes which should also be done[0] >>> >>> +1 to removing the y/N interactive prompt which would also allow us to >>> close this PR [1]. >>> >>> Also, we should close 2472 as NOTABUG or WORKSFORME as I commented on >>> here [2]. >>> >>> [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/2878/files#diff-6852a97801 >>> e832e280bae8ad6507338aR34 >>> [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/2874 >>> [2]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2472#note-8 >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> We've re-opened issue #2468, and Bihan is going to make the PR that >>>> implements this change. If there are any additional questions or concerns, >>>> please bring them up ASAP. >>>> >>>> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2468 >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Sean Myers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 12/07/2016 08:59 AM, Bihan Zhang wrote: >>>>> > +1 excluding pulp_celerybeat >>>>> > >>>>> > Also since we have the --ignore-running-workers flag and are ignoring >>>>> > celerybeat I would like to propose we stop prompting the user to >>>>> continue >>>>> > and instead just display an error message when we detect running >>>>> workers: >>>>> > 'Migration halted because there are still running workers, please >>>>> stop all >>>>> > workers before re-running this command. If you believe this message >>>>> was >>>>> > given in error please re-run the command with the >>>>> --ignore-running-workers >>>>> > flag' >>>>> >>>>> I think doing what's proposed would fix #2472. Add that to the fixes >>>>> from #2768 and #2769 and this should be good to ship another RC. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
