----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
