The problem is that we're currently pinning to master and if something in the plugin breaks backward compatibility, our prior releases will be perpetually broken, which is why I suggest it blocks the upcoming release.
The alternative would be to update ansible to pin to a specific commit or to make a release in apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka sooner rather than later and pin to its branch/tag. That feels like a waste of time though, as the 2.5.2 upgrade is somewhat trivial. Jon On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:14 AM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > While I think that the Bro work is super valuable, Jon, I am not sure that > we need to block the next release for it. In my mind, the "theme" of the > next release is Metaalerts running on ES 2.x. I'd prefer to just stick > with that. > > I was hoping we could get the remaining "Metaalerts + ES 2.x" PRs merged > and start cutting release candidates ASAP. That could be possible by end > of week based on the "big one" (METRON-1289) getting merged in last night. > > Of course, if you happen to get all the Bro work done in time, then > definitely let's include it in the next release. But I am wary of blocking > the release for that work. No need for you to rush through it. > > Just one man's opinion. Would like to hear feedback from more of the > community. > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:01 AM, zeo...@gmail.com <zeo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The way master's full-dev is set up right now is non optimal for the bro > > plugin configuration, and I would like to complete the roadmap I outlined > > in my discuss thread before a release. I have a PR open against > > Apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka right now to turn it into a plugin, and I > > expect it will take me until end of next week at the latest to have the > > rest of the work done to move us to 2.5.2, and to pin to a specific > package > > version. At that point I'm comfortable with a release. > > > > Jon > > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017, 18:57 Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I’ve been listening. Looks like there are still a number of major > issues > > > to be committed first, right? > > > The discussion on this thread constitutes sufficient engagement, I > think, > > > especially given the Subject line :-) > > > Would the folks working on the 6 issues listed by Nick care to suggest > a > > > cut-off date by which they’ll probably have those fixes in? > > > I’ll be happy to run the release process, if the community so wishes, > as > > > soon as those issues are committed. > > > > > > I guess I should, pro forma, send the list of commits already in since > > the > > > last release. I’ll do that today. > > > Also, if anyone wishes to raise a hand and propose additional commits > are > > > needed, please do so on this thread. > > > Thanks, > > > --Matt > > > > > > > > > On 11/15/17, 2:09 PM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'd say that if a release is this imminent that we had better > notify > > > the > > > release manager who will make a release announcement, Nick. Matt, > > are > > > you > > > tuning in to this? > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Guys - > > > > > > > > I want to follow-up on this discussion. It sounds like most > people > > > are in > > > > agreement with the general approach. > > > > > > > > A lot of people have been working hard on Metaalerts and > > > Elasticsearch. I > > > > have checked-in with those doing the heavy lifting and have > > compiled > > > a more > > > > detailed plan based on where we are at now. To the best of my > > > knowledge > > > > here is the plan of attack for finishing out this effort. > > > > > > > > (1) First, METRON-1289 needs to go in. This one was a fairly > big > > > effort > > > > and I am hearing that we are pretty close. > > > > > > > > (2) METRON-1294 fixes an issue in how field types are > looked-up. > > > > > > > > (3) METRON-1290 is next. While this may have been fixed in > > > M-1289, there > > > > may be some test cases we want from this PR. > > > > > > > > (4) METRON-1301 addresses a problem with the sorting logic. > > > > > > > > (5) METRON-1291 fixes an issue with escalation of metaalerts. > > > > > > > > (6) That leads us to Raghu's UI work in METRON-1252. This > > > introduces the > > > > UI bits that depend on all the previous backend work. > > > > > > > > (7) At this point, we should have our best effort at running > > > Metaalerts > > > > on Elasticsearch 2.x. I propose that we cut a release here. > > > > > > > > (8) After we cut the release, we can introduce the work for ES > > 5.x > > > in > > > > METRON-939. I know we will need lots of help testing and > reviewing > > > this > > > > one. > > > > > > > > Please correct me if I am wrong. I will try and send out updates > > as > > > we > > > > make progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, zeo...@gmail.com < > zeo...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree, I think it's very reasonable to move in line with > Nick's > > > > > proposal. I would also suggest that we outline what the target > > > versions > > > > > would be to add in the METRON-777 components, since it has been > > > > functional > > > > > for a very long time but not reviewed and has some really > > rockstar > > > > > improvements. > > > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:56 PM Otto Fowler < > > > ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think the ES cutover should be the start of the 0.5.x > series, > > > and we > > > > > > continue on with 0.4.x for the > > > > > > metadata improvements etc. We could chose to focus 0.5.x’s > > first > > > > > releases > > > > > > on not only ES but > > > > > > getting a handle on kibana and the mpack situation as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On November 6, 2017 at 12:48:45, Michael Miklavcic ( > > > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your proposal, Nick. I think having a > stabilizing > > > release > > > > > > prior to upgrading ES/Kibana makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Nick Allen < > n...@nickallen.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start a discussion around upcoming > releases. > > > We have > > > > a > > > > > > > couple separate significant tracks of work that we need to > > > reconcile > > > > in > > > > > > our > > > > > > > release schedule. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (1) We have had (and have in review) a good number of bug > > fixes > > > > > required > > > > > > to > > > > > > > support Metaalerts on the existing Elasticsearch 2.x > > > infrastructure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (2) We also have ongoing work to upgrade our infrastructure > > to > > > > > > > Elasticsearch 5.x, which will not be backwards compatible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to see a release that has our best work on ES > > 2.x > > > before > > > > > we > > > > > > > migrate to 5.x. I would propose the following. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release N+1: Introduce Metaalerts running on ES 2.x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Release N+2: Cut-over to ES 5.x > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Q) Is it worth cutting a separate release for ES 2.x? Is > > > there a > > > > > better > > > > > > > way to handle the cut-over to 5.x? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jon > > > -- Jon
