> 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.
> 
> Joshua Cohen wrote:
>     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?
> 
> Maxim Khutornenko wrote:
>     I don't think we can shy away from the fact that Mesos upgrades may and 
> will require making backwards incompatible Aurora changes as far as Mesos 
> versions go. The whole purpose of supporting the ">=" syntax is to define the 
> cluster upgrade as "first, upgrade Mesos then - Aurora". Trying to support -1 
> version in addition to +1 will only make our lifes harder and may even be 
> impossible in the future (e.g.: switching from `launchTasks` to 
> `acceptOffers`)
>     
>     John, given the above, how would like to proceed with this patch?

Yeah, we're going to have a similar issue for the 1.0 upgrade in that if we 
operators opt in to GPU resources we're going to have to send a framework 
capability that was only recently introduced.


- 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