I do agree that the MPack should be rev'd and a new RC should be cut. Is there a way to name the versioning of the management pack so that it indicates the oldest version of Metron that can be installed with that version? So, in this case, maybe 0.3.1.0?
Also, I'm looking for volunteers to take this renaming JIRA once we decide to do it. Casey On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good looking out, Jon! > > I would recommend against version matching it with Metron. In the future, > the MPack will need to rev much less frequently than Metron, so MPack rev > x.x.x.x will install Metron y.y.y+. My read on the prior release bits is > that 0.3.0 is using MPack 1.0.0.0-SNAPSHOT, which is either an error or an > indication that we didn't actually release the MPack as part of 0.3.0 > (which is my view), so if we agree it's ready, we can call this one 1.0.0.0 > and cut a new RC with that change. > > I'd also support the following: > > Declare it "not ready" and leave it at 1.0.0.0-SNAPSHOT > Decide 0.3.0 actually did contain MPack 1.0.0.0 and increment this to > 1.0.1.0. > (I'm sure there are other ways as well) > > My (weak) preference is to simply call this one 1.0.0.0. > > > -D... > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:43 PM, zeo...@gmail.com <zeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I was spinning up the 0.3.1-RC3 candidate on my bare metal cluster > today > > and I noticed that when I generated the mpack it still had a version of > > 1.0.0.0. I double checked and made sure that the mpack existed in the > > 0.3.0 release > > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/tree/Metron_ > > 0.3.0/metron-deployment> > > and > > that it was modified in between releases via the changelog. I would > > normally recommend that we modify the version to match with Metron > (0.3.1) > > but that would be going backwards. Thoughts? > > > > Jon > > -- > > > > Jon > > > > Sent from my mobile device > > >
