Re: Review Request 41785: Remove scheduler log scaffolding

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 10:29 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and

Re: Review Request 41785: Remove scheduler log scaffolding, advise configuration of java.util.logging for now.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/#review112283 --- Since we seem to have converged on log4j as a backend in the mailin

Re: Review Request 41786: Remove several scheduler command line arguments.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41786/#review112279 --- Ship it! Master (80ae5e8) is green with this patch. ./build-supp

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 6:06 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 2:38 p.m., John Sirois wrote: > > src/test/python/apache/aurora/BUILD, line 28 > > > > > > Strongly consider 'aurora' to make test target discoverability trivial. Done. > On Dec. 29, 2015, 2:38

Review Request 41786: Remove several scheduler command line arguments.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41786/ --- Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and Zameer Manji. Repository: aurora

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112275 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Joshua Cohen On Dec. 29, 2015, 10:32 p.m.,

Re: Review Request 41785: Remove scheduler log scaffolding, advise configuration of java.util.logging for now.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/#review112273 --- Master (80ae5e8) is green with this patch. ./build-support/jenkin

Re: Review Request 41785: Remove scheduler log scaffolding, advise configuration of java.util.logging for now.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/#review112272 --- Ship it! Ship It! - John Sirois On Dec. 29, 2015, 5:49 p.m., Bi

Re: Review Request 41785: Remove scheduler log scaffolding, advise configuration of java.util.logging for now.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 4:49 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Z

Review Request 41785: Remove scheduler log scaffolding, advise configuration of java.util.logging for now.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41785/ --- Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji. Repository: aurora D

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/#review112270 --- Ship it! Master (80ae5e8) is green with this patch. ./build-supp

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/#review112269 --- Ship it! Ship It! - John Sirois On Dec. 29, 2015, 5:06 p.m., Bi

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 4:06 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Z

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 3:59 p.m., John Sirois wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/http/api/ApiBeta.java, line 125 > > > > > > You can use {}'s and drop the guard now. Doh, thought i did that. Thanks

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/#review112263 --- Ship it! src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/http/api/ApiBe

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 3:52 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Z

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 3:15 p.m., John Sirois wrote: > > src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/storage/db/DbTaskStore.java, line > > 100 > > > > > > This now always logs all the fast queries - I don't think you wan

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 2:15 p.m., John Sirois wrote: > > commons/src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/common/zookeeper/ServerSetImpl.java, > > line 363 > > > > > > This branch is a perf-change since the message is now alway

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112241 --- Ship it! Master (80ae5e8) is green with this patch. ./build-supp

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 11:44 p.m., Stephan Erb wrote: > > Would be awesome if you could document the druid knowledge of how to > > properly execute tests (single test, all tests, ...). > > > > There is already this > > https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/f56ea265c1dcf4de5f67d31442eaee724870b0b

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 3:44 p.m., Stephan Erb wrote: > > Would be awesome if you could document the druid knowledge of how to > > properly execute tests (single test, all tests, ...). > > > > There is already this > > https://github.com/apache/aurora/blob/f56ea265c1dcf4de5f67d31442eaee724870b0bd

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112238 --- Would be awesome if you could document the druid knowledge of how t

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/#review112233 --- Ship it! Master (80ae5e8) is green with this patch. ./build-supp

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112232 --- Ship it! I did not find/grep imports to check your deps. src/tes

Re: Review Request 41778: Simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 2:32 p.m.) Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Z

Re: Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/#review112218 --- Ship it! LGTM mod the 2 similar issues marked, the rest is small s

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 2:54 p.m., Joshua Cohen wrote: > > I'm generally ok with this this. The main benefit of smaller target groups > > is faster test runs, but tbh, I've probably spent more time looking up > > which smaller target has the tests I want to run than I've saved ;). And - fwiw, the

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112226 --- Thanks for the quick feedback. Sounds like there's enough momentum

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 1:54 p.m., Joshua Cohen wrote: > > src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD, line 16 > > > > > > While we're at it, can we name the test targets to match the directory > > (so `api` in this

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112223 --- I'm generally ok with this this. The main benefit of smaller target

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 1:46 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD, line 81 > > > > > > Thinking out loud - i'm guessing this doesn't do what i want and roll > > up the tests within

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 2:46 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD, line 81 > > > > > > Thinking out loud - i'm guessing this doesn't do what i want and roll > > up the tests within

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 1:46 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD, line 81 > > > > > > Thinking out loud - i'm guessing this doesn't do what i want and roll > > up the tests within

Re: Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/#review112220 --- src/test/python/apache/aurora/client/api/BUILD (line 24)

Review Request 41778: Proposal: simplify test BUILD files to one target per directory.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41778/ --- Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji. Repository: aurora D

Review Request 41777: Use slf4j throughout the scheduler.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41777/ --- Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Zameer Manji. Repository: aurora D

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41762/#review112193 --- Ship it! Master (80ae5e8) is green with this patch. ./build-supp

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41762/#review112191 --- Ship it! Meant to mark ship since the code lgtm and my experiments

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 9:15 a.m., John Sirois wrote: > > The code itself LGTM. It would be great to get another test in that 3.4.2+ > > clients can read and write to 3.3.x servers from folks in the field with > > production zk setups. +1 this would be great data for release notes - Bill

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 4:37 a.m., Stephan Erb wrote: > > Looks like the 3.4 client also requires a 3.4 ZK server [1]. So, would it > > be possible to get a deprecation cycle for that change (i.e., announce in > > 0.12 and bump in 0.13)? > > > > Unfortunately, we are still running our masters on a

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41762/#review112187 --- The code itself LGTM. It would be great to get another test in tha

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41762/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 9:09 a.m.) Review request for Aurora, John Sirois and Z

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 28, 2015, 8:12 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > > > John Sirois wrote: > I found that by upgrading all the way to 3.4.7 the krb issues go away in > the unit tests (`./gradlew -Pq build`), although e2e krb fails (digging). > Presuming I can find a fix for that (we'll need to upgrade

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 28, 2015, 7:12 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > > > John Sirois wrote: > I found that by upgrading all the way to 3.4.7 the krb issues go away in > the unit tests (`./gradlew -Pq build`), although e2e krb fails (digging). > Presuming I can find a fix for that (we'll need to upgrade

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 8:43 a.m., John Sirois wrote: > > commons/src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/common/zookeeper/testing/ZooKeeperTestServer.java, > > line 83 > > > > > > '..., max 60 conections is ...' would be an eve

Re: Review Request 41763: Update a handful of dependencies.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41763/#review112181 --- Ship it! Ship It! - John Sirois On Dec. 29, 2015, 9:45 a.m., Bi

Re: Review Request 41763: Update a handful of dependencies.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41763/ --- (Updated Dec. 29, 2015, 8:45 a.m.) Review request for Aurora, Joshua Cohen and

Re: Review Request 41763: Update a handful of dependencies.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 8:38 a.m., Joshua Cohen wrote: > > mesos uses protobufs 2.5.0. Is there any danger in us using a newer > > version? Presumably 2.5 and 2.6 are compatible, but just want to be sure... I can't say with any authority, but their release notes don't mention anything about wire f

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41762/#review112169 --- commons/src/main/java/org/apache/aurora/common/zookeeper/testing/Z

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 28, 2015, 8:12 p.m., Bill Farner wrote: > > I found that by upgrading all the way to 3.4.7 the krb issues go away in the unit tests (`./gradlew -Pq build`), although e2e krb fails (digging). Presuming I can find a fix for that (we'll need to upgrade someday) you get a natural state

Re: Review Request 41775: add medallia to companies using aurora

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41775/#review112179 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Joshua Cohen On Dec. 29, 2015, 4:06 p.m., M

Re: Review Request 41763: Update a handful of dependencies.

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 6:13 a.m., John Sirois wrote: > > build.gradle, line 108 > > > > > > I'm not positive what the rubric is, but it reads to me like all forces > > here above the '// Force ...' comment fold should

Re: Review Request 41763: Update a handful of dependencies.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41763/#review112177 --- Ship it! mesos uses protobufs 2.5.0. Is there any danger in us usi

Re: Review Request 41775: add medallia to companies using aurora

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41775/#review112175 --- Ship it! Master (41c71d9) is green with this patch. ./build-supp

Review Request 41775: add medallia to companies using aurora

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41775/ --- Review request for Aurora. Repository: aurora Description --- add medall

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

> On Dec. 29, 2015, 5:37 a.m., Stephan Erb wrote: > > Looks like the 3.4 client also requires a 3.4 ZK server [1]. So, would it > > be possible to get a deprecation cycle for that change (i.e., announce in > > 0.12 and bump in 0.13)? > > > > Unfortunately, we are still running our masters on a

Re: Review Request 41763: Update a handful of dependencies.

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41763/#review112165 --- Ship it! build.gradle (line 108)

Re: Review Request 41762: Upgrade ZooKeeper dep to 3.4.2

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41762/#review112163 --- Looks like the 3.4 client also requires a 3.4 ZK server [1]. So, wo

Re: Review Request 41537: Upgrade mesos dependency to 0.25.0

> On Dec. 27, 2015, 1:45 a.m., Stephan Erb wrote: > > Exception message: Could not satisfy all requirements for > > mesos.native==0.25.0: > > mesos.native==0.25.0 > > > > The end-to-end tests are failing to me. Is that local issue or do we need > > to upload that egg somewhere? > > Bi