> On March 23, 2016, 7:31 a.m., Stephan Erb wrote:
> > Thinking out loud here, so please comment: 
> > 
> > We could move to a mode where we build against a specific Mesos version, 
> > and recommend that version for deployment, but leave it up to the cluster 
> > operator to select and deploy a compatible Mesos version. 
> > 
> > This would enable the following usecase:
> > 
> > * Aurora 0.12 currently depends on Mesos 0.25
> > * By the given compatability, cluster operators can safely update to Mesos 
> > 0.26.
> > * Instead of releasing Aurora with Mesos 0.26 as currently planned, we 
> > release a version build against 0.27. This one will be backwards 
> > compatible, and will therefore work with the deployed Mesos 0.26.
> > * Cluster operators can then safely update to Mesos 0.27 and Mesos 0.28
> > 
> > This should make it easier for us to keep up with the Mesos release train...
> 
> John Sirois wrote:
>     Leaving off the package dependency (which we already do by mistake for 
> the aurora-executor deb) certainly has a maintenance appeal, since we already 
> need to maintain the install guide in the aurora repo, which could contain or 
> point to a compatibility matrix we maintain.  If we do go with no explicit 
> mesos dependency in our binary packages (or a floating one), I think its 
> important a compatibility matrix be prominent in the install docs since the 
> questions and install problems will happen.  But if we do maintain a 
> compatibility matrix we could ~just as easily be adding the compatibility 
> constraints into the package dependencies too and avoiding a wider swath of 
> bug reports / questions.
>     
>     I've widened the reviewer scope a bit to gather more opions here.  This 
> may need a dev@ thread.
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
>     It's not a real bug for the executor. For the executor we boundle the 
> `mesos.native` wheel in the pex-file.

I'm pro min-version.  Without true semantic versioning in mesos, i'm doubtful 
we could be accurate with an upper bound.


- Bill


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/45212/#review125027
-----------------------------------------------------------


On March 23, 2016, 7:56 a.m., Pierre Cheynier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/45212/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated March 23, 2016, 7:56 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, Jake Farrell, John Sirois, Stephan Erb, Bill 
> Farner, and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora-packaging
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> We should consider MESOS_VERSION as the minimal requirement to install
> the current Aurora version instead of enforce a specific Mesos version.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   specs/rpm/aurora.spec 61e7d146108ae7dd5e129d8288a05773c2659d25 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/45212/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Install Aurora through the RPM built with aurora-packaging on a Mesos 0.27
> running install.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pierre Cheynier
> 
>

Reply via email to