Re: [DISCUSS] Splitting the repos - ambari-metrics and ambari-logsearch

2018-01-29 Thread Vivek Ratnavel
+1

-Vivek Ratnavel

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Nishant Bangarwa  wrote:

> +1
> --
> Nishant Bangarwa
> Hortonworks
> (M): +91-9729200044
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/29/18, 10:20 AM, "Swapan Shridhar"  wrote:
>
> >+1 for the splitting.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Swapan.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 1/28/18, 11:58 AM, "Don Bosco Durai"  wrote:
> >
> >>+1
> >>
> >>
> >>On 1/28/18, 11:56 AM, "Dmytro Grinenko" 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>+1
> >>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Siddharth Wagle [mailto:swa...@hortonworks.com]
> >>Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:19 AM
> >>To: dev@ambari.apache.org
> >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting the repos - ambari-metrics and
> ambari-logsearch
> >>
> >>Hi devs,
> >>
> >>
> >>We had a brief discussion about the release management of Ambari
> w.r.t to the new work that is on-going with Mpacks and multi-services,
> amongst the developers working on the respective pieces. The main point of
> discussion was that although Metrics and LogSearch are sub-projects of
> Ambari, the release cadence of these sub-projects and Ambari core does not
> have to be tied together. Having an Infra Mpack will allow changes to these
> two modules to be published independently.
> >>
> >>
> >>The general consensus was to have separate repos for Ambari Metrics,
> Ambari Log Search and Ambari Infra which would mean we can build and
> version these modules separately and simplify the release process. I wanted
> to start a discuss/vote thread for this. I will follow this up with an
> Infra ticket to fork off the git repos for Ambari Metrics, Ambari LogSearch
> and Ambari Infra separate from the core codebase once we reach consensus.
> >>
> >>
> >>Note: These sub-projects do not have any compile-time or run-time
> dependencies on Ambari except logical dependency on Ambari stack advisor
> feature to configure the services correctly based on cluster resources.
> With the MPack effort this behavior will be delegated to individual stack
> services and the corresponding code will be housed in the service repos
> anyways. Ambari depends on Ambari Metrics at compile time on the
> ambari-metrics-common module which is already published to maven central
> and we would continue to do so if anything changes in the common library.
> >>
> >>
> >>[ ] +1 approve
> >>[ ] +0 no opinion
> >>[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >>
> >>Here is my +1 to start.
> >>
> >>
> >>Best Regards,
> >>
> >>Sid
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Splitting the repos - ambari-metrics and ambari-logsearch

2018-01-29 Thread Jungtaek Lim
+1

Thanks,
Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)

2018년 1월 29일 (월) 오후 5:31, Vivek Ratnavel 님이 작성:

> +1
>
> -Vivek Ratnavel
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Nishant Bangarwa <
> nbanga...@hortonworks.com
> > wrote:
>
> > +1
> > --
> > Nishant Bangarwa
> > Hortonworks
> > (M): +91-9729200044 <+91%2097292%244>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/29/18, 10:20 AM, "Swapan Shridhar" 
> wrote:
> >
> > >+1 for the splitting.
> > >
> > >Thanks.
> > >
> > >Regards,
> > >Swapan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 1/28/18, 11:58 AM, "Don Bosco Durai"  wrote:
> > >
> > >>+1
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>On 1/28/18, 11:56 AM, "Dmytro Grinenko" 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>+1
> > >>
> > >>-Original Message-
> > >>From: Siddharth Wagle [mailto:swa...@hortonworks.com]
> > >>Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:19 AM
> > >>To: dev@ambari.apache.org
> > >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting the repos - ambari-metrics and
> > ambari-logsearch
> > >>
> > >>Hi devs,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>We had a brief discussion about the release management of Ambari
> > w.r.t to the new work that is on-going with Mpacks and multi-services,
> > amongst the developers working on the respective pieces. The main point
> of
> > discussion was that although Metrics and LogSearch are sub-projects of
> > Ambari, the release cadence of these sub-projects and Ambari core does
> not
> > have to be tied together. Having an Infra Mpack will allow changes to
> these
> > two modules to be published independently.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>The general consensus was to have separate repos for Ambari
> Metrics,
> > Ambari Log Search and Ambari Infra which would mean we can build and
> > version these modules separately and simplify the release process. I
> wanted
> > to start a discuss/vote thread for this. I will follow this up with an
> > Infra ticket to fork off the git repos for Ambari Metrics, Ambari
> LogSearch
> > and Ambari Infra separate from the core codebase once we reach consensus.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Note: These sub-projects do not have any compile-time or run-time
> > dependencies on Ambari except logical dependency on Ambari stack advisor
> > feature to configure the services correctly based on cluster resources.
> > With the MPack effort this behavior will be delegated to individual stack
> > services and the corresponding code will be housed in the service repos
> > anyways. Ambari depends on Ambari Metrics at compile time on the
> > ambari-metrics-common module which is already published to maven central
> > and we would continue to do so if anything changes in the common library.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>[ ] +1 approve
> > >>[ ] +0 no opinion
> > >>[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Here is my +1 to start.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Best Regards,
> > >>
> > >>Sid
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Splitting the repos - ambari-metrics and ambari-logsearch

2018-01-29 Thread Myroslav Papyrkovskyy
+1

Regards,
Myroslav Papirkovskyi

> 29 січ. 2018 р. о 10:36 Jungtaek Lim  написав(ла):
> 
> +1
> 
> Thanks,
> Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
> 
> 2018년 1월 29일 (월) 오후 5:31, Vivek Ratnavel 님이 작성:
> 
>> +1
>> 
>> -Vivek Ratnavel
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Nishant Bangarwa <
>> nbanga...@hortonworks.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> +1
>>> --
>>> Nishant Bangarwa
>>> Hortonworks
>>> (M): +91-9729200044 <+91%2097292%244>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/29/18, 10:20 AM, "Swapan Shridhar" 
>> wrote:
>>> 
 +1 for the splitting.
 
 Thanks.
 
 Regards,
 Swapan.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 On 1/28/18, 11:58 AM, "Don Bosco Durai"  wrote:
 
> +1
> 
> 
> On 1/28/18, 11:56 AM, "Dmytro Grinenko" 
>>> wrote:
> 
>   +1
> 
>   -Original Message-
>   From: Siddharth Wagle [mailto:swa...@hortonworks.com]
>   Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:19 AM
>   To: dev@ambari.apache.org
>   Subject: [DISCUSS] Splitting the repos - ambari-metrics and
>>> ambari-logsearch
> 
>   Hi devs,
> 
> 
>   We had a brief discussion about the release management of Ambari
>>> w.r.t to the new work that is on-going with Mpacks and multi-services,
>>> amongst the developers working on the respective pieces. The main point
>> of
>>> discussion was that although Metrics and LogSearch are sub-projects of
>>> Ambari, the release cadence of these sub-projects and Ambari core does
>> not
>>> have to be tied together. Having an Infra Mpack will allow changes to
>> these
>>> two modules to be published independently.
> 
> 
>   The general consensus was to have separate repos for Ambari
>> Metrics,
>>> Ambari Log Search and Ambari Infra which would mean we can build and
>>> version these modules separately and simplify the release process. I
>> wanted
>>> to start a discuss/vote thread for this. I will follow this up with an
>>> Infra ticket to fork off the git repos for Ambari Metrics, Ambari
>> LogSearch
>>> and Ambari Infra separate from the core codebase once we reach consensus.
> 
> 
>   Note: These sub-projects do not have any compile-time or run-time
>>> dependencies on Ambari except logical dependency on Ambari stack advisor
>>> feature to configure the services correctly based on cluster resources.
>>> With the MPack effort this behavior will be delegated to individual stack
>>> services and the corresponding code will be housed in the service repos
>>> anyways. Ambari depends on Ambari Metrics at compile time on the
>>> ambari-metrics-common module which is already published to maven central
>>> and we would continue to do so if anything changes in the common library.
> 
> 
>   [ ] +1 approve
>   [ ] +0 no opinion
>   [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> 
> 
>   Here is my +1 to start.
> 
> 
>   Best Regards,
> 
>   Sid
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 
>>