Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Move Aurora to Apache Attic

to committing to or forking it. Either way, from all of us a Chartbeat, thank you to everybody who worked on it so far. You've been a tremendous help to us. Rick On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 3:28 PM Renan DelValle wrote: All, The vote to move the Apache Aurora project into the Attic has passed. +1

[RESULT][VOTE] Move Aurora to Apache Attic

All, The vote to move the Apache Aurora project into the Attic has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Stephan Erb Bill Farner Mauricio Garavaglia Dave Lester John Sirois +1 (Non-Binding) -- Se Choi Rick Mangi There were no 0 or -1

Re: [VOTE] Move Aurora to Apache Attic

+1 (with a fair bit of sadness but hope for the future of the project) 2020-01-31 17:11 GMT-08:00 Renan DelValle: > Folks, > > As discussed previously, the project activity has diminished to the point > that the overhead of being an Apache project outweighs the benefits of be

[VOTE] Move Aurora to Apache Attic

Folks, As discussed previously, the project activity has diminished to the point that the overhead of being an Apache project outweighs the benefits of being under the Apache umbrella. If this vote passes, the PMC will be dissolved, our current project resources will be moved into the Attic,

[DISCUSSION] Move Apache Aurora into the Attic, reboot project on Github, and dissolve Aurora PMC

Folks, Per the guidelines to move a project to the Apache Attic [1] and in an effort be fully transparent with the community, I am making it public that we intend to move the Apache Aurora project into the Attic and rebooting the project under its own organization on Github. As the number of

Website moved to git and misc updates

Folks, I've taken some time this holiday to tackle some backlogged issues for our project. In particular, I've put a fair amount of work towards moving our website from SVN to Git. I'm happy to say the move was a success. Our website now resides at https://github.com/apache/aurora-website

Upgrading dependencies

Folks, Just wanted to give a heads up that I've been working on upgrading some of our project's dependencies. I'm going to try to get through these upgrades in a quick manner. In order to keep moving and not lose momentum, I'll be merging stuff into the master somewhat quickly. If anyone

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC1

at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/aurora/0.22.0/apache-aurora-0.22.0.tar.gz.asc The GPG key used to sign the release are available at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/aurora/KEYS On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 15:41:57 -0800 (PST), "Renan DelValle" wrote: > Al

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC1

All, The vote to accept Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC1 as the official Apache Aurora 0.22.0 release has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Stephan Erb Mauricio Garavaglia There were no 0 or -1 votes. Thank you to all who helped make this release. -Renan On Thu, 12 Dec

Docker Compose based dev setup

All, In an effort to simplify the development process I've been working on a way to create a Mesos/Aurora dev cluster using docker-compose[1]. I'd love to get some feedback on what can be improved. I've been doing some development myself using this project and it has cut down the time I've

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC1

Kicking the voting off with a +1 from me. Ran the end to end tests successfully. On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 13:36:31 -0800 (PST), "Renan DelValle" wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official > Apache Aurora 0.22.0 release.

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC1

All, I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official Apache Aurora 0.22.0 release. Aurora 0.22.0-rc1 includes the following: --- The RELEASE NOTES for the release are available at: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora.git=RELEASE-NOTES.md=rel/0.22.0-rc1 The

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC0

Voting -1, marking this release as failed, and closing the vote on this release candidate. As Stephan Erb pointed out, we are currently failing our end to end tests. Will investigate a solution and call for a new release candidate. -Renan On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:05:56 -0700 (PDT), "

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.22.0 RC0

All, I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official Apache Aurora 0.22.0 release. Aurora 0.22.0-rc0 includes the following: --- The RELEASE NOTES for the release are available at: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora.git=RELEASE-NOTES.md=rel/0.22.0-rc0 The

Re: Planning for 0.22.0 release

Cool, then I'll create an RC either today or tomorrow and start the voting. Thanks folks! On 10/20/19 5:54 AM, Stephan Erb wrote: Sounds good from my side as well. +1 On 15.10.19, 19:20, "Mauricio Garavaglia" wrote: +1 On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:03 PM Renan DelVa

Planning for 0.22.0 release

Folks, We've accumulated enough changes where I feel comfortable beginning the voting process for a release candidate for Aurora 0.22.0 Aurora 0.22.0 would be compatible all the way up to Mesos 1.6.x. Releasing 0.22.0 would allow us to have a saner path for operators to upgrade their Mesos

[NOTICE] PMC Chair change

All, First, I wish to sincerely thank Jake Farrell who stepped up to lead this project at a very critical time and has been a great champion of the project. We wouldn't still be here without your contributions Jake, thank you. Second, I wanted to inform the community that yesterday the Apache

Python 2 is being sunset on January, 2020

All, Python 2 is on it's way out and will no longer be receiving security updates after Jan 1st, 2020. [1] Aurora currently has a few components which are currently only compatible with Python 2 including thermos. Running Aurora components that are only compatible with Python 2 may become an

Moving website from svnpubsub to gitpubsub

All, I plan on filing a request to move our website from svnpubsub[1] to gitpubsub[1] as this will make it easier to keep the latest documentation up to date using a CI. It looks like this was attempted a while ago ( https://github.com/apache/aurora-website) but it was never finished. Unless

Merging Batch Aware Auto Pause and preparing 0.22.0 for release

Folks, Pending a sanity check from Mauricio for the changes he requested, I'm looking to merge PR #54 (https://github.com/apache/aurora/pull/54) which will add Batch Aware Auto Pausing within the next two weeks. This feature will come in pretty well tested but I want to label it as a beta

New PMC member: Mauricio Garavaglia

All, It is my pleasure to announce that Mauricio Garavaglia has agreed to join the Aurora PMC. His membership acceptance comes at a crucial time for the project to continue to exist as an Apache project. Finally, just a friendly reminder that we're still looking for folks to help maintain the

Re: Status and Health of the Aurora Project

I'm still willing to dedicate time to the project. Since this announcement was made I've heard from a few users offline. Looks like none of us really want to see this project end up in the Apache Attic. Folks who want to contribute: would any of you feel comfortable stepping up and becoming

ASF Board Report for Aurora March 2019

committers added in the last 3 months - Last committer addition was Renan DelValle at Fri Jan 26 2018 Issue backlog status since last report: * 0 JIRA tickets created in the last 3 months * 0 JIRA tickets closed/resolved in the last 3 months Mailing list activity since last report: * @dev

Re: How can I change the ThermosExecutor DEBUG log to INFO?

Doesn't look like it's currently an option. It seems like all components are set to DEBUG. https://github.com/apache/aurora/search?q=set_disk_log_level_q=set_disk_log_level May be a good idea to have this a parameter. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:56 PM thinker0 wrote: > How can I change the DEBUG

Re: Combining limit and dedicated constraint

limit:1 and other values. > > As a sanity check, if you remove the host that _is_ having the task > scheduled, does the task move to the other host? > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 5:10 PM Renan DelValle > wrote: > > > I have two dedicated nodes with a dedicated X attribute

Combining limit and dedicated constraint

I have two dedicated nodes with a dedicated X attribute. I launched a Job containing the dedicated constraint X and a limit:1 and the job has two instances. Only one instance is able to find a match while the other alternates between being vetoed for not matching the dedicated attribute and not

Re: [DISCUSSION] Potential braking change in Mesos 1.6 upgrade - docker thermos based tasks and aurora task ssh

t; chmod in > https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/32776792d273b36afbf4a1bab69a66fb06163ffd/src/main/python/apache/aurora/executor/common/sandbox.py#L173 > to restore the previous umask of 755 for the sandbox directory? > > Best regards, > Stephan > > On 16.10.18, 03:47, "Renan DelValle" wro

[DISCUSSION] Potential braking change in Mesos 1.6 upgrade - docker thermos based tasks and aurora task ssh

All, As you may know Mesos has changed the default permissions for the sandbox from 755 (-rwxr-xr-x) to 750 (-rwxr-x---) ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8332). Stephan Erb fixed most of the breakage caused by this change with his recent patch

Re: svn commit: r1842285 - in /aurora/3rdparty: centos/7/python/ debian/jessie64/python/ ubuntu/trusty64/python/ ubuntu/xenial64/python/

Uploaded :) -Renan On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:00 PM Renan DelValle wrote: > Hi thinker0, > > First off, many thanks for your recent contributions. They're very much > appreciated. > > I tried to build CentOS 6 and was unfortunately unsuccessful for 1.5.1 and > 1.6.1 (e

executor name in getTasksWithoutConfigs

All, Right now the thrift API getTasksWithoutConfigs returns a null executorConfig. This makes it impossible for the Web UI to differentiate between thermos tasks which conform to the format that the observer expects and non-thermos based tasks which do not follow a specific sandbox layout. What

Re: svn commit: r1842285 - in /aurora/3rdparty: centos/7/python/ debian/jessie64/python/ ubuntu/trusty64/python/ ubuntu/xenial64/python/

Hi thinker0, First off, many thanks for your recent contributions. They're very much appreciated. I tried to build CentOS 6 and was unfortunately unsuccessful for 1.5.1 and 1.6.1 (even with our previous Vagrantbox setup). The gcc compiler got caught in a loop for some macro and eventually

Re: Build failed in Jenkins: AuroraBot #159733

Thank you for turning it off. It looks like the jenkins worker nodes are having connectivity issues. In either case, we don't really need this anymore since we have travis-ci to take it's place. I'll work on moving aurora-packaging to travis-ci as well. -Renan On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:47 AM

Aurora Board Report

Please find the draft report for September below, if anyone has any modifications or addition please let me know. Jake, feel free to submit this on the community's behalf once all modifications and additions are done. -Renan Apache Aurora is a stateless and fault tolerant service scheduler used

Volunteers needed

All, We are in dire need of folks who would be willing to commit time to review patches and submit patches to maintain the project. Small things like submitting a patch to upgrade our Mesos dependency (or any other dependency really) go a long way towards keeping the project up to date.

Unofficial Binaries for Aurora 0.21.0

All, Since we voted to eliminate official binary packages with our last official binary release being 0.20.0, I'm providing UNOFFICIAL binary packages for the community via my own personal bintray account for 0.21.0 These unofficial packages were created with

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC1

at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/aurora/0.21.0/apache-aurora-0.21.0.tar.gz.asc The GPG key used to sign the release are available at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/aurora/KEYS On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:51 PM Renan DelValle wrote: > All, > The vote to accept

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC1

All, The vote to accept Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC1 as the official Apache Aurora 0.21.0 release has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Stephan Erb David McLaughlin There were no 0 or -1 votes. Thank you to all who helped make this release. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC1

Ran the verify release script, +1 (binding) from me. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:00 PM Renan DelValle wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official > Apache Aurora 0.21.0 release. > > Aurora 0.21.0-rc1 includes the following: > --

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC1

All, I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official Apache Aurora 0.21.0 release. Aurora 0.21.0-rc1 includes the following: --- The RELEASE NOTES for the release are available at: https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora.git=RELEASE-NOTES.md=rel/0.21.0-rc1 The

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC0

y that users of Aurora 0.22 won't be able to update to Mesos > 1.6.0. This breaks our +-1 version compatibility assumption. Should we get > the patch merged before the release? > > Best regards, > Stephan > > On 04.09.18, 21:43, "Renan DelValle" wrote: > >

[NOTICE] Calling for Lazy Consensus on PR #28

All, Giving notice to other PMC members (and community members) in the interest of getting 0.21.0 out the door: Given that this PR has been open for 27 days and is needed for our release, I'm calling for lazy consensus[1] on it. If no one reviews or opposes this patch by Friday, September 7th

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC0

breaks our +-1 version compatibility assumption. Should we get the patch merged before the release? Best regards, Stephan On 04.09.18, 21:43, "Renan DelValle" wrote: Kicking off the vote with a +1 (binding) from me. Ran verify release script and everything passed. -Rena

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.21.0 RC0

Kicking off the vote with a +1 (binding) from me. Ran verify release script and everything passed. -Renan On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:30 PM Renan DelValle wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official > Apache Aurora 0.21.0 release. >

Re: Regarding our recent move to gitbox

Kicking off this discussion with my own opinions inline: On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 5:04 PM Renan DelValle wrote: > All, > > I wanted to take a few minutes to explain what our recent change to gitbox > means in practice. > > For our users: > * The change is (hopefull

Regarding our recent move to gitbox

All, I wanted to take a few minutes to explain what our recent change to gitbox means in practice. For our users: * The change is (hopefully) not very impactful. The only thing that changes is the location of the aurora and aurora-packing repositories. Update those as needed by your usage. * You

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] aurora and aurora-packaging repositories moved to gitbox

/apache/aurora.git * aurora-packaging: https://github.com/apache/aurora-packaging.git Apologies for the noise. -Renan On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:30 AM Renan DelValle wrote: > All, > > As of today we have transitioned our git repositories for aurora and > aurora-packaging from git-w

[ANNOUNCEMENT] aurora and aurora-packaging repositories moved to gitbox

All, As of today we have transitioned our git repositories for aurora and aurora-packaging from git-wip to gitbox. The old address for the aurora git repository was: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/aurora.git The new address for the aurora git repository is:

0.21.0 Release Planning

All, Given that a pretty serious bug affects versions of Mesos lower than 1.5.0 ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-7215), I wanted to bring up the topic of cutting a release tested against Mesos 1.5.0. Between SLA aware Maintenance and SLA aware updates, along with a few other patches

[NOTICE] Aurora is moving to Apache GitBox

All, The vote to move from the legacy ASF git hosting to the GitBox service has passed. When we finish our move we cannot guarantee that the the legacy ASF git repository will continue to be operational. Thus, I encourage users to evaluate dependencies and prepare to make changes accordingly. As

[RESULT] [VOTE] Move project to Apache GitBox service

All, The vote to move the Apache Aurora project to the Apache GitBox service has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Jordan Ly David McLaughlin Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham +1 (Non-binding) -- Mauricio Garavaglia Nicolas Donatucci

[REPORT] Apache Aurora - June 2018

Please find the draft report for June below, if anyone has any modifications or addition please let me know. Jake, feel free to submit this on the community's behalf once all modifications and additions are done. -Renan Apache Aurora is a stateless and fault tolerant service scheduler used to

Re: [VOTE] Move project to Apache GitBox service

Kicking the vote off with a +1 from me since I feel it will simplify our patch submission process and lower the difficulty bar for new contributors. On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM Renan DelValle wrote: > All, > > I propose we move our project into the GitBox service. This will

[VOTE] Move project to Apache GitBox service

All, I propose we move our project into the GitBox service. This will allow us to read and write to our repositories on the GitHub platform enabling us to accept pull requests for both the aurora and aurora-packaging repositories. If this vote passes, the pull request workflow will replace our

Re: [DISCUSS] Move project to GitBox service

8 at 7:37 AM Mauricio Garavaglia < > mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:01 AM, David McLaughlin < > dmclaugh...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > Thanks for kicki

[DISCUSS] Move project to GitBox service

All, I wanted to bring up for discussion moving the project from our current ReviewBoard based workflow to a GitHub pull request based workflow through the use of the ASF's GitBox service[1]. The GitBox service would allow us to read/write to our GitHub repository instead of only mirroring our

Recovery instructions updates

Hi all, We tried following the recovery instructions from http://aurora.apache.org/documentation/latest/operations/backup-restore/ After our change from the Twitter commons ZK library to Apache Curator, these instructions are no longer valid. In order for Aurora to carry out a leader election

[RESULT] [VOTE] Discontinue Official Binary Package releases

All, The vote to discontinue official binary package releases has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Stephan Erb Bill Farner David McLaughlin Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham +1 (Non-binding) -- Mauricio Garavaglia Nicolas Donatucci

Re: [DISCUSS] State of the Community

just don't see the engagement we need to be able to pull this off. We could not even get enough interest to host an Aurora Meetup, so I see this as an uphill battle if we attempt it. I could be wrong though and I would be more than happy to be part of it if we start running it. -Renan > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] State of the Community

S] State of the Community > > Hello Renan, > > I understand your frustration. > > I am a strong +1 for automating the release and voting process. I performed > a release a while back and the process definitely needs it improve > documentation > at the least. If

Re: [VOTE] Discontinue Official Binary Package releases

+1 On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Mauricio Garavaglia < mauriciogaravag...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > >> All, >> >> As has been brought up before, we lack the capaci

[VOTE] Discontinue Official Binary Package releases

All, As has been brought up before, we lack the capacity to continue to hold votes separately for releases and binary releases. Therefore, I propose that we stop release binary packages until such a time as when we can combine voting for release packages and binary packages into a single vote.

Re: [DISCUSS] State of the Community

. -Renan On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Renan DelValle <renanidelva...@gmail.com> wrote: > In some ways, that's some of the best feedback we can get. Very happy to > hear that Aurora is working fo well for Chartbeat. > > I do hope that you guys find some time to help us ma

Re: (Potentially) Deprecating the Python bindings

Thermos, the default Aurora executor, still uses the Python bindings. There are currently no plans to move Thermos to the HTTP APIs as far as I know. -Renan On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Andrew Schwartzmeyer < and...@schwartzmeyer.com> wrote: > Hi Aurora devs, > > Are you guys still using

Re: [DISCUSS] State of the Community

cipate more, at least with > testing new releases. > > We thank you though! > > Rick and the rest of Chartbeat Engineering > > > > On May 4, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I wanted to bring up a

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.x packages

All, The vote to accept the proposed packages as our official binary packages for Apache Aurora 0.20.x has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Stephan Erb Jordan Ly There were no 0 or-1 votes. There were no non-binding votes. The official packages are now

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.x packages

be great! -Renan On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > Friendly reminder that this vote is still open, please vote! > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > >> All, >> >> I p

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.x packages

Friendly reminder that this vote is still open, please vote! On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following artifacts as the official deb and > rpm packaging for > Apache Aurora 0.20.x: >

Sunsetting official binary package for Ubuntu 14.04 after Aurora 0.21.0

Hi all, We're almost exactly one year away from the end of life of Ubuntu 14.04.[1] Taking this into consideration, I wanted to see how the community felt about 0.21.0 being the last release to have official Ubuntu 14.04 packages. Please let use know what you think! Thanks, -Renan [1]

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.x packages

All, I propose that we accept the following artifacts as the official deb and rpm packaging for Apache Aurora 0.20.x: https://dl.bintray.com/rdelvalle/aurora/ --- The branch used to create the packaging is: https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora-

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC1

All, The vote to accept Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC1 as the official Apache Aurora 0.20.0 release has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Stephan Erb Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham Renan DelValle +1 (Non-binding) -- There were no 0 or -1 votes. Thank you

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC1

Must be! In that case it doesn't seem like a reason to hold back the release. +1 from me as well. On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:08 AM, Stephan Erb <s...@apache.org> wrote: > This test seems to pass for me. Maybe some flaky behaviour? > > On Thu, 2018-03-29 at 14:09 -0700, Renan

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC1

, Stephan Erb <stephan@blue-yonder.com> wrote: > +1 > > Verification script has passed for me now. > > On 28.03.18, 21:30, "Renan DelValle" <re...@apache.org> wrote: > > All, > > > I propose that we accept the following release cand

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC0

ings I have seen fail: > >> > >> • Failures of the curl disabling Mesos maintenance schedules > >> • Can't check signature: public key not found > >> > >> I have tested on two different computers to rule out a bad setup, but > both > >> errors

Re: Slack IRC Gateway support ending

else to consider. On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:37 AM, David McLaughlin <dmclaugh...@apache.org> wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion here, the whole chat space is very flavor of > the month. Does Apache have a policy? > > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:04 PM, Renan De

Slack IRC Gateway support ending

Hi all, Slack has announced that their gateway for IRC will no longer be available after May 15th, 2018. [1] mslackbot was last seen in our IRC channel on February 9th, 2018. [2] I would like to hear some feedback from the community as to how we should proceed. My personal experience has been

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC0

errors have shown up a couple of times now. Could it be that the Vagrant > update has introduced some issues here? > > > On 07.03.18, 21:44, "Renan DelValle" <re...@apache.org> wrote: > > Reminder that the vote for 0.20.0 is still open. > > Kicking

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC0

Reminder that the vote for 0.20.0 is still open. Kicking off the vote with a +1 from me. On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official > Apache Aurora 0.20.0 release.

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.20.0 RC0

All, I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official Apache Aurora 0.20.0 release. Aurora 0.20.0-rc0 includes the following: --- The RELEASE NOTES for the release are available at: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora.git=RELEASE-NOTES.md=rel/0.20.0-rc0 The

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

All, The vote to accept the proposed packages as our official binary packages for Apache Aurora 0.19.x has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle David McLaughlin Stephan Erb There were no 0 or-1 votes. There were no non-binding votes. The official packages are now

Re: Aurora 0.20.0 Release Date

018, at 8:04 AM, Stephan Erb <stephan@blue-yonder.com> > wrote: > > > > I think this is a good idea. Development has slowed down enough that it > should not be difficult to cut a release. > > > > On 09.02.18, 02:49, "Renan DelValle" <re...@apac

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

regarding these binary packages, binding or otherwise, is welcome so that we may fix any issues that crop up. Thanks, -Renan On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > All, > > Friendly reminder to download, verify, and test so we can conclu

Design Doc for Staggered Updates

HI all, I'm looking to get feedback on this design proposal for staggered updates: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xGk4ueH8YlmJCk6hQJh85u4to4M1VQD0l630IOchvgY/edit# The goal of this proposal is composed of two main pieces: 1. Create a feature that pauses updates automatically after a batch

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

All, Friendly reminder to download, verify, and test so we can conclude the voting! Thanks! -Renan On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > Kicking off the voting with a +1 (binding) from me. > > Tested all distributions using the test scri

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

Kicking off the voting with a +1 (binding) from me. Tested all distributions using the test scripts. -Renan On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following artifacts as the official deb and > rpm pack

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

All, I propose that we accept the following artifacts as the official deb and rpm packaging for Apache Aurora 0.19.x: https://dl.bintray.com/rdelvalle/aurora/ The Aurora deb and rpm packaging includes the following: --- The branch used to create the packaging is:

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.1 RC0

11, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > All, > The vote to accept Apache Aurora 0.19.1 RC0 as the official Apache Aurora > 0.19.1 > release has passed. > > > +1 (Binding) > ------ > Renan DelValle > Bill Farn

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.1 RC0

All, The vote to accept Apache Aurora 0.19.1 RC0 as the official Apache Aurora 0.19.1 release has passed. +1 (Binding) -- Renan DelValle Bill Farner Stephan Erb There were no 0 or -1 votes or non-binding votes. Thank you to all who helped make this release. On Fri

Aurora 0.20.0 Release Date

All, Since Mesos has shipped version 1.5.0 today, should we consider releasing 0.20.0 (which supports Mesos 1.4.0) so we don't fall too far behind in terms of Mesos compatibility? -Renan

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.1 RC0

PM, Renan DelValle <renanidelva...@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official > Apache Aurora 0.19.1 release. > > Aurora 0.19.1-rc0 includes the following: > --- > The RELEASE NOTES for the release are a

[VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.1 RC0

All, I propose that we accept the following release candidate as the official Apache Aurora 0.19.1 release. Aurora 0.19.1-rc0 includes the following: --- The RELEASE NOTES for the release are available at: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=aurora.git= RELEASE-NOTES.md=rel/0.19.1-rc0 The

Re: Welcome new committers and PMC member!

-0800, Manivannan wrote: > > Welcome Renan and Jordan! > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Bill Farner <wfar...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > I'm happy to announce that we have two new developers on the project! > &g

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

gt; > public List thermosExecutorResources = ImmutableList.of(); > > > We expect this to become an empty list, however the parser emits a list of > size one, containing an empty string. I've filed AURORA-1962 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1962> for t

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Aurora 0.19.x packages

I'm running into the same issues as Stephan. I tried with Trusty, Xenial, and Jessie. Same issue with all. Somehow a Mesos fetcher entry with a URI value of '' gets injected into the task protobuf. This is the command I ran for Trusty: ./test/test-artifact.sh test/deb/ubuntu-trusty/

Re: Thrift 0.10.0

Thanks John and Stephan for the hard work! *NOTE: If you don't use go bindings to interact with Aurora, feel free to ignore the rest of this message.* Just a heads up to those those who use go clients and want to maintain version parity: Upgrading to bindings generated by Thrift 0.10.0 to

Re: gorealis is now officially a PayPal Open Source Project

releasing! > > On Oct 16, 2017, 4:15 PM -0500, Renan DelValle <renanidelva...@gmail.com>, > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Just wanted to drop a note about a recent update for gorealis[1]. For > those > > who aren't familiar with it, gorealis is a library that ai

gorealis is now officially a PayPal Open Source Project

Hi all, Just wanted to drop a note about a recent update for gorealis[1]. For those who aren't familiar with it, gorealis is a library that aims to enable users to programmatically interact with the Aurora scheduler without dealing with thrift directly. A few days ago the project was moved from

Extending Aurora Pluggable Scheduling Proposal

Hello fellow Aurorans, I'd like to share a proposal doc that seeks to lay out a roadmap for bringing in new scheduling features to Aurora. David McLaughlin did a fantastic job of getting the ball rolling with the pluggable scheduling patches he contributed (1) and I'd like to expand upon that

Re: Aurora reconciliation and Master fail over

Yup, that looks like the way to go. Going to go ahead and file a ticket on JIRA for this so that we don't forget. Thanks for digging into this David. -Renan On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:00 PM, David McLaughlin wrote: > Based on the thread in the Mesos dev list, it looks

Re: Proposal for Pluggable Scheduling in Aurora

Hi David, Any updates on the progress of this proposal/feature? -Renan On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:59 PM, David McLaughlin wrote: > Hi all, > > I've posted a patch to enable replacing the scheduling algorithms in > Aurora. The patch is relatively trivial but has some

Re: Preparations for 0.17.0

I'd really like to take care of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1780 for 0.17.0, at least allow the scheduler to take less drastic measures. If any one wants to submit any feedback as to how we should tackle this, I'm all ears. -Renan On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Joshua Cohen

  1   2   >