> On July 7, 2016, 2:33 a.m., John Sirois wrote:
> > I am slightly worried the tests only seem to work after this change ... 
> > IIUC Aurora 0.15.0 should work with mesos 0.27.2 (Aurora should work with 
> > the mesos its developed against +/- 1).
> 
> John Sirois wrote:
>     Oh, now I understand I think. You used this patch to do the 0.15.0 
> release, which is in error.  The 0.15.0 release should have a >= 0.27.2 mesos 
> constraint.
>     
>     If that makes sense, un-shipit.
> 
> Stephan Erb wrote:
>     That observation regarding specifying >=0.27 even though we have build 
> against 0.28 probably correct. 
>     
>     FWIW, our previous packages have been inconsistent in that regard as well:
>     
>     * 0.12 is build against Mesos 0.25 but specifies >=0.21.1 for Debian and 
> ==0.25 for Centos
>     * 0.13 is build against Mesos 0.26 but specifies >=0.26
>     * 0.14 is build against Mesos 0.27.2 but specifies >=0.27.2
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     > Aurora should work with the mesos its developed against
>     
>     That may or may not be true. It all depends on what we change in Aurora 
> to bump up the Mesos version. In 0.15.0, we upgraded Mesos to 0.28.2 that 
> required us to treat the new Mesos task state (KILLING). This means 0.15.0 
> cannot rely on 0.27.2 anymore and >= 0.28.2 seems the only logical constraint 
> there.

Yeah, unfortunately there's no great way to upgrade to 0.28.2 without 
explicitly depending on the new `TaskState.KILLING` value. We either had to 
make the change I made (add explicit support for the state to `Conversions` or 
we would have had to update `ConversionsTest` to explicitly ignore that task 
state, either way it would require 0.28.2. I suppose we *could* ignore it in 
the test by checking for `"KILLING".equals(state.getName())`. That seems a bit 
hacky but it would allow us to upgrade to 0.28.2 while letting 0.15.0 still run 
against 0.27.x.

Is that preferable, or are we ok with bending the rules in this instance?


- Joshua


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/#review141120
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 7, 2016, 12:30 a.m., Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 7, 2016, 12:30 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Aurora and Stephan Erb.
> 
> 
> Repository: aurora-packaging
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Update package scripts to 0.15.0.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   README.md 3a7cf45034b7896c23588fed83176468ca627ebc 
>   specs/debian/control e4d23ba6190ebbd3afbb930e305d76f5b61a5dac 
>   specs/rpm/aurora.spec 7a368fd8128153a3167032727fe011a8a7457853 
>   test/deb/debian-jessie/README.md a98407b96c673eb6ca6269d646755926d51fd4ab 
>   test/deb/debian-jessie/provision.sh 
> ed4364f69a63493d7a1fd6791ef743609c99b924 
>   test/deb/ubuntu-trusty/README.md c5579857443c73d8343a82210e34be98ad3a86da 
>   test/deb/ubuntu-trusty/provision.sh 
> 5b4ec472a23d5d401a64a6a72743c392d048f949 
>   test/rpm/centos-7/README.md e5649015934e4714a054a5be7a83f9c333b70144 
>   test/rpm/centos-7/provision.sh 5aa88a5d86a990131cdbdae5d93aeb75a1dc7c90 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/49732/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko
> 
>

Reply via email to