Yeah, I definitely agree with folding testing Ubuntu into an RC. It would be nice if we could fold that testing into a schedule, e.g. weekly, to avoid unpleasant surprises at RC time. Not really sure what the best way to go about that would be. I think a Jira on the testing topic is a good idea.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nick is right that the ASF does not provide support in an explicit way > (i.e. there are no pathways to get *prioritized* support via SLAs, etc.), > but it is expected that apache projects provide support via mailing lists > and answered by volunteers. Specifically, this is the crux of the > "community over code" credo. That philosophical point aside, I think what > Justin may be intending is "support" in the sense of how much do we fold > Ubuntu into our testing cycle. It could be said that we tacitly "support" > configurations which we test, beyond that caveat emptor. Which is to say > that questions on the mailing lists for Metron on Centos will likely be > answered whereas Metron on OpenBSD might be met with more skepticism or not > answered. > > I would argue that we start with Nick's very generous contribution without > forcing developers to test their code against it. Eventually, when we have > a full-dev that spins up ubuntu, I'd argue that we could consider folding > it into our testing plans for an RC. > > Regarding whether it fits in a feature branch, I think that as long as each > PR stands alone in providing value, we can avoid a feature branch. It > might be worthwhile constructing a JIRA in apache to capture the follow-on > tasks required to bring Ubuntu into a status where it's more prominent in > our testing cycle. > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > > > > The end goal is Ubuntu Ambari + Deb and full-dev-ubuntu right? > > > > That list sounds good to me. > > > > (Plus, some way of dealing with Justin's point about support.) > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I’m ok if it is not. Suggesting because it is a series of prs. > > > > > > The end goal is Ubuntu Ambari + Deb and full-dev-ubuntu right? > > > > > > On December 15, 2017 at 10:03:23, Nick Allen (n...@nickallen.org) > wrote: > > > > > > > This seems like a feature branch candidate. > > > > > > Personally, I don't see the need for a feature branch on this one. It > > > won't involve big, architectural changes. The touch points are > > > constrained. Everything that we currently have will continue to work > as > > it > > > always had after each PR. If you feel strongly the other way, please > > > provide your reasoning to help me understand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> This sounds awesome. The hortonworks article is getting older ever > day. > > >> This seems like a feature branch candidate. > > >> > > >> On December 14, 2017 at 18:22:33, Nick Allen (n...@nickallen.org) > > wrote: > > >> > > >> I've done some work to get the MPack working on Ubuntu. I'd like to > get > > >> that work packaged up and contributed back to Apache. I think it would > > be > > >> genuinly useful to the community. > > >> > > >> Here is how I was thinking about tackling that through a series of > PRs. > > >> > > >> 1. Create the DEBs necessary for installing on Ubuntu. See PR #868. > > >> > > >> 2. Submit 3 or 4 separate PRs that enhance the existing MPack so that > it > > >> works on both CentOS and Ubuntu. I honestly am not sure how many will > > fall > > >> out of the work that I've done, but I will try to chop it up logically > > so > > >> that it is easy to review. > > >> > > >> 3. Create a "Full Dev" equivalent for Ubuntu so that we can see the > > >> end-to-end install work for Ubuntu in an automated fashion. > > >> > > >> > > >> ** I do not expect developers to test their PRs on both CentOS and > > Ubuntu. > > >> I think the existing CentOS "Full Dev" should remain as the gold > > standard > > >> that we test PRs against. No changes there. > > >> > > >> Let me know if you have feedback or thoughts on this. > > >> > > >> Chao > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
