Re: Rev additional metron components?

Yup Matt. I can most definitively state that Ambari Upgrade is not currently supported. Yet. :) -D... On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Justin Leet wrote: > Jira is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-710. > > Justin > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > > > The only

Re: Rev additional metron components?

Jira is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-710. Justin On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Matt Foley wrote: > The only reason not to go “backwards” is if someone is going to try to use > Ambari Upgrade to move from the 0.3.0 Mpack to this one. > > I THINK it’s unlikely this is a concern,

Re: Rev additional metron components?

The only reason not to go “backwards” is if someone is going to try to use Ambari Upgrade to move from the 0.3.0 Mpack to this one. I THINK it’s unlikely this is a concern, so I’m okay with 0.3.1.0, but I would change my opinion if someone says a real-world user in the field will want to use Am

Re: Rev additional metron components?

I'm good with 0.3.1.0 too, so I'll go ahead and spin up a ticket and make that change. Justin On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:53 PM, David Lyle wrote: > I'm good with 0.3.1.0. > > -D... > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:36 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I agree with Casey regarding the version itself,

Re: Rev additional metron components?

I'm good with 0.3.1.0. -D... On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:36 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > I agree with Casey regarding the version itself, but I'd be fine with > somethign else if someone else has a convincing argument. > > Jon > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM Justin Leet wrote: > > I can pick

Re: Rev additional metron components?

I agree with Casey regarding the version itself, but I'd be fine with somethign else if someone else has a convincing argument. Jon On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM Justin Leet wrote: I can pick this up once we have an agreement on the version number. When we agree on that, I'll make a Jira and

Re: Rev additional metron components?

I can pick this up once we have an agreement on the version number. When we agree on that, I'll make a Jira and rev it. Justin On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Casey Stella wrote: > 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

Re: Rev additional metron components?

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

Re: Rev additional metron components?

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 e

Rev additional metron components?

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