----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#review106142 -----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 4244 - 4247) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment164852> why do it here instead of in recoverFramework() #4363? that feels more consistent with #1345. src/slave/slave.cpp (lines 4928 - 4929) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment164840> put these on the same line on #4927 ``` completedExecutors(MAX_COMPLETED_EXECUTORS_PER_FRAMEWORK) {} ``` src/slave/slave.cpp (line 4934) <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#comment164839> This should be the responsibility of the caller, i.e., the caller should call this only when checkpointing is enabled. - Vinod Kone On Nov. 11, 2015, 5:59 a.m., James Peach wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Nov. 11, 2015, 5:59 a.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 ac2d0e0153721a66495cd6539b25f5b3cee9d979 > > 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 > >
