metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zeolla@GMail.com" <zeo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'
Date Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:09:20 GMT
FYI to be uber clear about the effects of what I'm doing, spinning up
full-dev only when including the sensors will be broken on the bro plugin
install step between when I push the changes, and when mattf pushes the 0.1
tag to apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka.

Jon

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:05 PM Zeolla@GMail.com <zeolla@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sounds good.  Yes Matt, I will handle my parts now.  Thanks everyone
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 2:32 PM Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I can start the release process tonight.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jon, you mentioned you want to commit
>>
>> > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/847 and
>> > https://github.com/apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka/pull/4
>>
>> before the release.  Is it convenient for you to do so today?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
>> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:13 AM
>> To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org>
>> Cc: Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'
>>
>>
>>
>> I am more interested in getting a release cut.  If me moving to the (a)
>> camp gets us to consensus and cuts a release faster, then I'll do it.
>> Let's get this release train moving.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:44 AM, Justin Leet <justinjleet@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Do we have any further discussion on this?  Pardon me if I misstate
>> anyone's position, but it seems like we have a couple people (Otto and Jon
>> and slightly Matt?) in favor of (a), Nick in favor of (b), and presumably
>> a
>> section of people like myself without a particular horse in the race.
>>
>> It seems like we need to come to some sort of consensus so that we can get
>> the release bus moving again, and right now it seems like (a) is gathering
>> more explicit support.  Do we have a compelling reason to not do (a)? To
>> be
>> honest, my main worry is more "If we do (a) are we going to be miserable
>> if
>> we need to iterate or adjust?" I'm not seeing anything that suggests
>> anything too terrible, so unless we see some more discussion, I suggest we
>> move forward with (a).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Zeolla@GMail.com <zeolla@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I would prefer a, but I was initially thinking of doing the plugin first
>> > and then get in the two PRs out to use this new tag, which are already
>> +1'd
>> > and just waiting on this conversation.  For reference,
>> > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/847 and
>> > https://github.com/apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka/pull/4
>> >
>> > Jon
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017, 20:54 Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > It seems to me, as I believe I have stated before that a) feels like
>> the
>> > > proper way to handle this.  It is how I have seen other projects like
>> > NiFi
>> > > handle things as well.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On December 4, 2017 at 17:14:41, Matt Foley (mattf@apache.org) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Okay, looking at this from the perspective of making a release:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > We have two choices:
>> > >
>> > > a) I can simply make a 0.1 (or 1.0 or 0.4.2) release of
>> > > metron-bro-plugin-kafka, at the same time and using the same process
>> > > (modulo the necessary) as Metron.  This is dirt simple.
>> > >
>> > > b) I or someone needs to:
>> > >
>> > >     - open a jira,
>> > >
>> > >     - add the submodule to the Metron code tree,
>> > >
>> > >     - possibly (optionally) add build mechanism to the maven poms, and
>> > >
>> > >     - document as much as we think appropriate regarding what it is,
>> how
>> > to
>> > > build it, and how to update it,
>> > >
>> > > and commit that before the 0.4.2 release.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What is the will of the community?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > >
>> > > --Matt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
>> > > Reply-To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org>
>> > > Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:09 AM
>> > > To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org>
>> > > Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for
>> > Bro'
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I'll add a bit to Jon's technical comments.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > * We only created a separate repo because it was a technical
>> requirement
>> > to
>> > > leverage the bro-pkg mechanism.
>> > >
>> > > * Leveraging the new bro-pkg mechanism has many advantages as
>> outlined by
>> > > Jon.
>> > >
>> > > * Enabling the bro-pkg mechanism is backwards compatible. I can
>> install
>> > the
>> > > plugin exactly how we use to.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > While I agree with Jon's technical comments, I disagree with the
>> > > non-technical ones.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (1) I do not want to change our release management process. While we
>> > needed
>> > > to make a new repo (a technical change), I did not want that to change
>> > how
>> > > we operate as a community (our procedures, policies, versioning and
>> > release
>> > > cycles).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (2) I see no value in adopting a separate release management process
>> for
>> > > the Bro plugin alone. Having a separate release process does not make
>> the
>> > > plugin *more* available to the Bro community.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (3) I also see no value in positioning the plugin to be spun-out of
>> the
>> > > Metron project. It is a part of Metron and I want to see it benefit
>> and
>> > > evolve "the Apache-way".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > In my mind, the best way to accommodate the additional repo, while
>> > > minimizing changes to our release management process, is to treat the
>> new
>> > > repo as a submodule. I fail to see significant downsides to this
>> > approach.
>> > > A few extract command-line options do not seem overly onerous to me.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Many thanks go to Jon for all the hard work he has put in enhancing
>> the
>> > > plugin.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 10:07 PM, Zeolla@GMail.com <zeolla@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In an attempt to keep this from becoming unbearably long, I will try
>> to
>> > > keep my responses short, but I would be happy to elaborate. That's a
>> > fairly
>> > > good timeline and summary, but here are some clarifications in
>> > > corresponding order:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > - The plugin history is quite short and you can probably get a good
>> bit
>> > of
>> > > context just by looking at the commits.
>> > >
>> > > - The plugin is only useful to the bro community, but it is rather
>> > popular.
>> > >
>> > > - The Bro team created the idea of bro packages, which can include bro
>> > > plugins, bro scripts, or BroControl plugins. So, instead of having a
>> > > 'plugins' repo, they moved to have a 'packages' repo which is by
>> default
>> > > referenced by a bro-pkg tool they wrote for package management.
>> > >
>> > > - I believe I kicked this off (or at least I did in my head) when I
>> > started
>> > > complaining about the plugin divergence that occurred due to the move
>> to
>> > > bro/plugins (the right move at the time), but Metron's use of a local
>> > > directory that hadn't been kept up to date. My current efforts are an
>> > > attempt to make sure this doesn't happen again, and to take advantage
>> of
>> > > the bro-pkg benefits.
>> > >
>> > > - The gap between ~3/31 and actual progress on 11/12 is completely on
>> me
>> > -
>> > > I had intentions of doing this work sooner but failed to do so.
>> > >
>> > > - You can most definitely still install/use the bro plugin without
>> using
>> > > bro-pkg. In fact, the README in my PR still has the instructions on
>> how
>> > to
>> > > do so.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Q1: The simple explanation is that the only thing that makes a plugin
>> a
>> > bro
>> > > package is the inclusion of a bro-pkg.meta file, and it includes a
>> > > build_command which could easily be manually performed to install by
>> hand
>> > > (assuming dependencies are met).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I've worked with other projects that use submodules and while I'm fine
>> > > discussing it, I suggest that we don't implement it. I put together a
>> > quick
>> > > example of why here[1], using the bro project as an example since it's
>> > top
>> > > of mind.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Q2: I think the answer to Q1 answers this. There is absolutely nothing
>> > > stopping a git clone && cd $dir && configure &&
make && make install,
>> but
>> > > using bro-pkg to install/load takes into account dependencies and unit
>> > > tests when it is loaded (and thus fails early and more intuitively).
>> It
>> > > only must be a separate repo (or, more technically correct, a git
>> branch
>> > > that includes only the package) because of how bro-pkg works. If you'd
>> > like
>> > > to get an idea of how this would work in application for Bro users,
>> you
>> > can
>> > > see my test instructions here (specifically step #3). If a 0.1 tag
>> gets
>> > > pushed to apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka, the command could be
>> `bro-pkg
>> > > install metron-bro-plugin-kafka --version 0.1` or `bro-pkg install
>> > > apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka --version 0.1` due to this (the
>> --force is
>> > > just to remove user interaction, for an ansible spin-up).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 1: To clone the Bro git repo, you must run `git clone --recursive
>> > > https://github.com/bro/bro` <https://github.com/bro/bro> <
>> https://github.com/bro/bro> (note the
>> > > --recursive). Not too big of a deal,
>> > > but requires that you remember it and existing instructions/blog posts
>> > may
>> > > give users inaccurate steps. Let's make this worse and try to checkout
>> > > their latest release, v2.5.2, and automatically update the submodules
>> > > appropriately via `git checkout v2.5.2 --recurse-submodules`. This
>> fails
>> > > because aux/plugins (https://github.com/bro/plugins) was removed
>> since
>> > > their latest release. Okay, we can work around this using `git
>> checkout
>> > > v2.5.2` and then remember to `git submodule update` every time you
>> > checkout
>> > > a release or branch. But because they have nested submodules, we
>> actually
>> > > need to run `git submodule update --recursive`. I can't imagine opting
>> > into
>> > > a workflow anything like this. There are other options as well, such
>> as
>> > git
>> > > subtrees, but those I am less familiar with.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:59 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I am not sure that our use of the plugin necessarily equates to it
>> being
>> > > implicitly coupled to Metron. It seems like the Right Thing To Do,
>> esp.
>> > > for an Apache project would be to make this available for use by the
>> > > greater bro community.
>> > > Unless we expect to do extensive iterative work on the plugin, which
>> > would
>> > > then make the decision to spin it out now premature.
>> > >
>> > > Then again, I might be wrong ;)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On November 27, 2017 at 19:58:11, Matt Foley (mattf@apache.org)
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > [Please pardon me that the below is a little labored. I’m trying to
>> > > understand the implications for both release and use, which requires
>> some
>> > > explanation as well as the two questions needed. Q1 and Q2 below are
>> > > probably the same question, asked in slightly different contexts.
>> Please
>> > > consider them together.]
>> > >
>> > > So this made me go back and look at the history that caused us to put
>> the
>> > > bro plugin in a separate repo. As best I can see, this was in
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-813 , which cites an
>> email
>> > > discussion thread. Also please see
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-883 for background on
>> the
>> > > plugin itself.
>> > >
>> > > As best I can assemble the many bits brought up in the threads, the
>> > reasons
>> > > to put it in a separate repo was:
>> > > - The plugin was thought to be useful to multiple clients of bro and
>> > kafka,
>> > > including Storm and Spark, as well as Metron.
>> > > - Originally the bro project was maintaining bro plugins and it was
>> > thought
>> > > they might adopt this one.
>> > > - Bro then formalized their plugin framework BUT dumped all plugins
>> out
>> > of
>> > > their sphere of maintenance.
>> > > - As of 3/31/2017, Nick said that “the [bro] package mechanism
>> requires
>> > > that a package live within its own repo”. Jon said “the bro packages
>> > model
>> > > doesn't allow colocation with anything else.”
>> > > - So on 3/31 Jon opened METRON-813, and the metron-bro-plugin-kafka
>> repo
>> > > was created a few days later. But Metron wasn’t actually modified to
>> > remove
>> > > the metron-sensors/bro-plugin-kafka/ subdirectory and start using the
>> > > plugin from the metron-bro-plugin-kafka repo until Nov 12 – two weeks
>> > ago!
>> > > – with https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1309 .
>> > > - Presumably the need to have metron-bro-plugin-kafka in a separate
>> repo
>> > > remain valid, if the bro plugin mechanism is used. But obviously there
>> > are
>> > > (non-conforming) ways to build the plugin as part of metron, and
>> install
>> > it
>> > > in a way that works.
>> > >
>> > > Q1. I think that last statement needs some explanation. Nick or Jon,
>> can
>> > > you please expand on it, especially wrt how the end user installs the
>> > > plugin once the plugin is built the two different ways? And whether
>> it’s
>> > > still valuable to have a separate repo for the plugin?
>> > >
>> > > Nick suggests using a submodule approach to managing the bro plugin,
>> for
>> > > Metron versioning purposes. As I understand it, this would continue
>> the
>> > > existence of the metron-bro-plugin-kafka repo, but copy it into the
>> > metron
>> > > code tree for building, versioning, and release purposes. Git
>> submodules
>> > > are documented here:
>> https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Submodules
>> > .
>> > > We would use the submodule capability to clone the
>> > metron-bro-plugin-kafka
>> > > source code into a subdirectory of Metron at the time one clones the
>> > metron
>> > > repo. It would then be released with Metron as part of the source code
>> > > release for a given version of Metron. Part of the way submodules are
>> > > managed, is that git stores the SHA1 hash of the submodule into a file
>> > > named .gitmodules, which in turn gets saved when you do a git push. So
>> > > indeed submodules would ensure that everyone cloning a given version
>> of
>> > > metron would get the expected “version” (sha, actually) of
>> > > metron-bro-plugin-kafka.
>> > >
>> > > This sounds like a good idea, although it isn’t without cost.
>> Submodules
>> > > impose the need for additional commands to actually get a copy of the
>> > > submodule source, and if the plugin repo advanced beyond the version
>> in a
>> > > metron repo, it causes some ‘git status’ artifacts that could be
>> > confusing
>> > > to folks who aren’t familiar with submodules. But these can be
>> > documented.
>> > >
>> > > Q2. Nick, what I’m not clear about is the process by which the
>> > > metron-bro-plugin-kafka would be built and “plugged in” by (a) metron
>> > > developers, and (b) end users. If it “must” be in a separate repo to
>> be
>> > > successfully built and managed by the bro plugin mechanism, does that
>> > mean
>> > > it can’t be built from the copy in the Metron source tree? Yet until
>> > > November, that’s exactly what we were doing. Do we go back to doing
>> that?
>> > > What does that mean wrt users installing the plugin?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your patience in reading this far.
>> > > --Matt
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 11/27/17, 2:58 PM, "James Sirota" <jsirota@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I agree with Nick. Since the plugin is tightly coupled with Metron why
>> > not
>> > > just pull it into the main repo and version it with the rest of the
>> code?
>> > > Do we really need the second repo for the plug-in?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > James
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 16.11.2017, 08:06, "Nick Allen" <nick@nickallen.org>:
>> > > >> I would suggest that we institute a release procedure for the
>> package
>> > > >> itself, but I don't think it necessarily has to line up with metron
>> > > >> releases (happy to be persuaded otherwise). Then we can just link
>> > metron
>> > > >> to metron-bro-plugin-kafka by pointing to specific
>> > > >> metron-bro-plugin-kafka releases (git tags
>> > > >> <
>> > > http://bro-package-manager.readthedocs.io/en/stable/
>> > package.html#package-
>> > > >> versioning>
>> > > >> ).
>> > > >> Right now, full-dev spins up against the
>> > > >> apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka master branch, which is not a good
>> idea
>> > > to
>> > > >> have in place for an upcoming release. That is the crux of why
I
>> think
>> > > we
>> > > >> need to finalize the move to bro 2.5.2 and the plugin packaging
>> before
>> > > our
>> > > >> next release (working on it as we speak).
>> > > >> Jon
>> > > >
>> > > > ​I replayed Jon's comments from the other thread above.​
>> > > >
>> > > > My initial thought, is that I would not want to manage two separate
>> > > release
>> > > > processes. I don't want to have a roll call, cut release candidates
>> and
>> > > > test both.
>> > > >
>> > > > I was thinking we would just need to change some of the
>> > behind-the-scenes
>> > > > processes handled by the release manager. This is one area where I
>> had
>> > > > thought using a submodule in Git would help.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> + Restarting the thread to include mentors.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The code of the 'Kafka Plugin for Bro' is now maintained in the
>> > external
>> > > >> repository that we set up a while back.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> - Metron Core: git://git.apache.org/metron.git
>> > > >> - Kafka Plugin for Bro: git://git.apache.org/
>> > > >> metron-bro-plugin-kafka.git
>> > > >>
>> > > >> (Q) Do we need to change anything in the release procedure to
>> account
>> > > for
>> > > >> this?
>> > >
>> > > -------------------
>> > > Thank you,
>> > >
>> > > James Sirota
>> > > PMC- Apache Metron
>> > > jsirota AT apache DOT org
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Jon
>> > >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Jon
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> Jon
>
-- 

Jon

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