Change:
${GCE_SLOW_TESTS[@]:+${GCE_SLOW_TESTS[@]}}  )"} : ${KUBE_GCE_INSTANCE_PREFIX:="e2e-gce-${NODE_NAME}-${EXECUTOR_NUMBER}"} <del> : ${KUBE_GCS_STAGING_PATH_SUFFIX:="-${NODE_NAME}-${EXECUTOR_NUMBER}"} </del> : ${PROJECT:="kubernetes-jenkins-pull"} : ${ENABLE_DEPLOYMENTS:=true} # Override GCE defaults

Discussion:
We seem to have an occasional consistency issue between the client and server versions on our Jenkins GCE e2e project. Build 6295 failed this morning because the client version was newer than the server version: The server version matches the build was was immediately running in 6294, which was aborted early. I wonder if (somehow) the cleanup didn't work properly? (Which is a bit worrying if so.) Here's the version from 6294: A short while later, build 6297 failed, this time with the client version older than the server version: This one makes a little bit more sense: there was a new build published between downloading the client/test tarballs and setting up the cluster. I'm guessing that somewhere in the cluster setup scripts the latest CI release file was read again, rather than using the version read for the client/test tarballs. (I haven't yet worked out where exactly it's read, but it should be an easier fix.) cc
A side issue: we should probably figure out why the build git client is being marked dirty. Since we're checking out the head version from GitHub, it should ideally be a clean client.
The -dirty bit is now fixed by .
This is caused by different Jenkins jobs uploading to the same GCS bucket and clobbering each other. In we see: Over in
This also explains the issues seen in ; the job is also running in the same project.
Ah, good sleuthing. We avoided this issue in the PR builds by setting (used ), but maybe we should always be setting to include the Jenkins job name (and optionally executor/node number).
The original idea was to run every e2e job in it's own project, to avoid these sorts of name clashes. But we seem to have regressed and now have many jobs sharing the same projects. Is project-per-job not a better approach? It also helps with resource leaks and the likes. Just a thought.
I'd argue this is actually uncovering a (dev) deployment bug; I should be able to deploy different versions of Kubernetes to the same project. I know you and I disagree (and probably always will) on the strategy here.

:smile:
fwiw I think I agree with that if project-per-job avoids this issue and helps identify resource leaks, it's a pragmatic near-term improvement in the state of the world that would result in more benefit than the cost of changing all the everythings to support multi-job-in-project. Re: devs deploying different versions of k8s to the same project, P3 feature request?
I was just about to suggest the same thing. I will file a separate issue, and fix this in the short term an easier way. is out to make it easier to isolate a run to a project.
Also it seems like a reasonable thing (higher than P2) to want to deploy multiple clusters to the same project safely in prod, not just dev. Disagree?
Multiple clusters in prod using well-defined build versions such as v1.1.4 = P0. Multiple clusters in prod using our cooked-up test-building system = non-goal?
SGTM; this is prod code, though, not test code; it's used every time we call , regardless of whether it's a CI build or released version.
FYI: kubernetes-e2e-gce-reboot/ has one reboot test failed due to kube-proxy image change. But that build doesn't include pr yet.
looks like it. That run used version , but the first build with was .