> On Nov. 11, 2015, 9:28 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > src/slave/slave.cpp, lines 4244-4247 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/diff/1/?file=1122973#file1122973line4244> > > > > why do it here instead of in recoverFramework() #4363? that feels more > > consistent with #1345.
I did this after recovery because the original code did not write framework checkpoints if the slave was in RECOVERING state. I did not see a reason for that, but decided to preserve the behavior as much as possible just in case. - James ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/40177/#review106142 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >