Summary of IRC Meeting in #aurora at Mon Jun 15 18:03:37 2015: Attendees: jfarrell, Yasumoto, kts, mkhutornenko, benley, zmanji, dlester
- Preface - board report - rc 0.9 progress - release Apache Aurora 0.8.0 api artifacts vote IRC log follows: ## Preface ## [Mon Jun 15 18:03:54 2015] <kts>: good morning everyone and welcome to this week's #aurora community meeting [Mon Jun 15 18:03:59 2015] <kts>: let's get started with roll call [Mon Jun 15 18:04:30 2015] <kts>: while we're doing roll call, does anyone have topics for the agenda? we will address them in the order they are presented [Mon Jun 15 18:04:43 2015] <zmanji>: here [Mon Jun 15 18:05:00 2015] <mkhutornenko>: here [Mon Jun 15 18:05:24 2015] <jfarrell>: here [Mon Jun 15 18:05:37 2015] <Yasumoto>: howdy howdy [Mon Jun 15 18:06:27 2015] <benley>: Here ## board report ## [Mon Jun 15 18:07:07 2015] <jfarrell>: I submitted the draft board report I sent to the dev@ list, we are all set for this months report (which is also our last monthly report, we will now be on quarterly reports moving forward) ## rc 0.9 progress ## [Mon Jun 15 18:07:50 2015] <jfarrell>: AURORA-1078 [Mon Jun 15 18:08:14 2015] <jfarrell>: committed the deb packaging after testing that out all last week, thanks benley for the patch [Mon Jun 15 18:08:25 2015] <kts>: thanks benley! [Mon Jun 15 18:09:02 2015] <jfarrell>: how are the other 7 open tickets looking, or are we at a good spot in each to know if we should bump from the rc or not [Mon Jun 15 18:09:16 2015] <kts>: I think most can be bumped, as discussed last week [Mon Jun 15 18:09:28 2015] <dlester>: present [Mon Jun 15 18:09:31 2015] <jfarrell>: yep, just wanted to confirm no progress had been made [Mon Jun 15 18:09:54 2015] <kts>: looking over the commit log it looks like there were 5 total commits since the last meeting [Mon Jun 15 18:10:37 2015] <kts>: 3 unrelated to release progress [Mon Jun 15 18:11:23 2015] <kts>: only one I'm unsure of is AURORA-715 [Mon Jun 15 18:11:28 2015] <kts>: AURORA-715 [Mon Jun 15 18:11:57 2015] <kts>: mkhutornenko: do you think the deprecation bits of that one will make it into 0.9.0 or should we kick it [Mon Jun 15 18:12:35 2015] <mkhutornenko>: code removal should not be in the 0.9.0 [Mon Jun 15 18:13:04 2015] <mkhutornenko>: we need to have both gc executor and task reconciliation in 0.9.0 [Mon Jun 15 18:13:07 2015] <kts>: 0.9.0 introduces support for using Mesos task reconcilliation instead right? [Mon Jun 15 18:13:14 2015] <mkhutornenko>: correct [Mon Jun 15 18:13:17 2015] <kts>: and that's done [Mon Jun 15 18:13:23 2015] <kts>: so nothing more to do on that epic for 0.9.0 [Mon Jun 15 18:13:25 2015] <mkhutornenko>: and 0.10.0 will remove gc exector completely [Mon Jun 15 18:13:36 2015] <mkhutornenko>: not that I am aware of [Mon Jun 15 18:13:41 2015] <kts>: maybe some warning messages if gc executor is enabled [Mon Jun 15 18:14:13 2015] <mkhutornenko>: there is nothing to warn about, either can be used interchangably [Mon Jun 15 18:14:35 2015] <mkhutornenko>: we will be ready to kill gc executor once we build more confidence in task raconciliation [Mon Jun 15 18:14:39 2015] <jfarrell>: if any of the others listed currently can be completed this week then we will plan to include, otherwise will bump them [Mon Jun 15 18:14:40 2015] <kts>: well, support for the gc is planned to be removed in 0.9.0 [Mon Jun 15 18:14:52 2015] <kts>: the other deprecation is the removal of the old security api, which I'd like to punt to 0.10.0 [Mon Jun 15 18:15:09 2015] <jfarrell>: will need some release script updates for the deb packages as well as java api to avoid having to do that by hand again, but minimal. looks like rpm patch has been reviewed and comments provided also, so just wanting on updated patch [Mon Jun 15 18:15:10 2015] <kts>: given a couple of the bugs that have been fixed in the new one in this release [Mon Jun 15 18:15:43 2015] <kts>: zmanji: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1074 [Mon Jun 15 18:16:07 2015] <kts>: any reason to punt that from 0.9.0? [Mon Jun 15 18:16:25 2015] <zmanji>: no there is no reason to remove it from 0.9.0 [Mon Jun 15 18:16:51 2015] <zmanji>: wfarner and I discussed previously that keeping âhostâ and ârackâ constraints forces users to encode fault domains that they might not have [Mon Jun 15 18:16:57 2015] <mkhutornenko>: I am working on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1139 this week [Mon Jun 15 18:17:17 2015] <jfarrell>: lets get those listed as blockers then [Mon Jun 15 18:17:57 2015] <jfarrell>: anything else on 0.9 topic ? [Mon Jun 15 18:18:17 2015] <kts>: just a note on how these tickets are filed [Mon Jun 15 18:18:17 2015] <kts>: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/AURORA-1079 [Mon Jun 15 18:18:30 2015] <kts>: Some are prefixed with "Remove", some with "Deprecate", some with "Warn" [Mon Jun 15 18:18:59 2015] <kts>: I think this is a little bit sloppy w.r.t. terminology [Mon Jun 15 18:19:32 2015] <jfarrell>: +1 to getting that cleaned up [Mon Jun 15 18:19:41 2015] <kts>: I should be able to look at a feature and see "Deprecate in 0.N.0, Remove in 0.N+1.0" [Mon Jun 15 18:20:09 2015] <kts>: possibly it needs two different tickets (the deprecate ticket should usually imply adding a warning somewhere) [Mon Jun 15 18:20:25 2015] <jfarrell>: these should be added to NEWS also [Mon Jun 15 18:21:01 2015] <kts>: any thoughts on how these should be structured? [Mon Jun 15 18:21:41 2015] <jfarrell>: two tickets on it would be good [Mon Jun 15 18:22:20 2015] <kts>: should we have a 0.10.0 deprecations epic created already? [Mon Jun 15 18:22:57 2015] <jfarrell>: if we have a ticket to deprecate in 0.9 should make a ticket to remove in 0.10 [Mon Jun 15 18:23:23 2015] <jfarrell>: not sure we need a full deprecations epic to follow around each release [Mon Jun 15 18:23:54 2015] <kts>: With the two-ticket solution I'd propose the following structure, the Deprecate ticket is linked to the 0.N.0 deprecations epic, a Remove ticket is linked to the 0.N+1.0 deprecations epic, and the Deprecate ticket is marked as a blocker to the Remove ticket [Mon Jun 15 18:24:26 2015] <kts>: I'll propose this on the mailing list [Mon Jun 15 18:24:30 2015] <jfarrell>: sounds good ## release Apache Aurora 0.8.0 api artifacts vote ## [Mon Jun 15 18:25:10 2015] <kts>: I'd suggest we extend that vote, as most of the window landed over the weekend [Mon Jun 15 18:25:41 2015] <jfarrell>: was going to extend since cast late last week [Mon Jun 15 18:26:19 2015] <jfarrell>: if we can get some votes on this would be great, will be putting a review up which will make this automated as part of the rc process [Mon Jun 15 18:27:15 2015] <kts>: +1, as there will be many artifacts in the future [Mon Jun 15 18:28:10 2015] <kts>: i'd like a scheduler binary distribution and pypi packages for at least the clients as well in the near future [Mon Jun 15 18:29:09 2015] <jfarrell>: we will need a two part rc, one for source and one for binary packages (deb, jar, py, ⦠) [Mon Jun 15 18:29:38 2015] <jfarrell>: both can be packaged up and voted on at same time, just more work to automate and integrate into our tests [Mon Jun 15 18:29:47 2015] <kts>: but if we can combine the binaries into one vote that would be good [Mon Jun 15 18:30:11 2015] <kts>: are there any other topics? member of the community feel free to speak up - it's mostly been the jfarrell and kts show [Mon Jun 15 18:30:18 2015] <kts>: *members [Mon Jun 15 18:30:19 2015] <jfarrell>: we can do it all as part of a given rc vote [Mon Jun 15 18:31:55 2015] <jfarrell>: thats all the topics I had for this week, anyone else? [Mon Jun 15 18:34:10 2015] <kts>: looks like that's it, thanks everyone [Mon Jun 15 18:34:13 2015] <kts>: ASFBot: meeting stop Meeting ended at Mon Jun 15 18:34:13 2015
