-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#review107070
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4321)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment165986>

    pull this down to #4344
    
    s/upgradeCheckpoint/recheckpoint/



src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4344)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment165987>

    How about:
    
    // In this case, we update `FrameworkInfo.framework_id`  from the directory 
name and re-checkpoint it.



src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4365)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment165989>

    is it possibel for framework->info.checkpoint() to be false if we are here? 
if not, this should be a CHECK instead.



src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4366)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment165991>

    kill this log line.


- Vinod Kone


On Nov. 18, 2015, 6:49 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Nov. 18, 2015, 6:49 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Kapil Arya and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3834
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3834
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> When performing an upgrade cycle, it is possible for a 0.24 and
> later agent to recover from a framework checkpoint written by 0.22
> or earlier. In this case, we need to compatibly accept a missing
> FrameworkID, and then rewrite the framework checkpoint so that
> subsequent upgrades don't hit the same problem.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/slave.hpp ec2dfa99e6b553e2bcd82d12db915ae8625075a1 
>   src/slave/slave.cpp d1126f00d947fdb4823b0c495335b743254ac7ee 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check on CentOS 6.7.
> Manual testing with a rolling upgrade from 0.22
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to