metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Support Ubuntu Installs in the MPack
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2017 16:07:41 GMT
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 <cestella@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 <nick@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 <ottobackwards@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 (nick@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 <ottobackwards@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 (nick@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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message