> On April 14, 2016, 7:08 p.m., John Sirois wrote:
> > Looks like we do ~nothing with executorLost so LGTM.
> > I can only imagine folks pagers going off more if they happened to alert on 
> > `scheduler_lost_executors`, which should now be higher if the upgrade notes 
> > are to be believed.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     Do you think that's worth calling out in the release notes? I'd assume 
> given that `executorLost` was not invoked before that no one is alerting on 
> `scheduler_lost_executors` since, in theory, it would've always been 0.

I don't think it's worth calling out.


- John


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/46241/#review129054
-----------------------------------------------------------


On April 14, 2016, 7:01 p.m., Joshua Cohen wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/46241/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated April 14, 2016, 7:01 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> N.B.: I won't commit this until 0.13.0 has been released.
> 
> I've built a new box for Vagrant using these settings and I'll upload it in 
> concert with this commit.
> 
> Release notes here: http://mesos.apache.org/blog/mesos-0-27-0-released/
> Upgrade notes here: 
> http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/upgrades/#0-27-x-implicit-roles
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/python/BUILD e7a1fe4a94190ad6090d7c800cfebd8b8c3dfed1 
>   RELEASE-NOTES.md a0536ec352119952d4d58aa5f36e5e9a7b7d2e6e 
>   build-support/packer/build.sh 146e62e5ff7e2f4163083029cbf1688234100d3d 
>   build.gradle e4e42fdf8f4c7dee41ec4ca009bceb6858cad93f 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46241/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> build-support/jenkins/build.sh
> ran e2e tests.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joshua Cohen
> 
>

Reply via email to