metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Miklavcic <michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Metron Release - 0.7.1 next steps
Date Wed, 08 May 2019 16:12:41 GMT
Hey everyone,

METRON-2100 has been merged - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398,
and the parser aggregation UI work and feature branch is under way.

Justin, can we kick off an RC2?

Cheers,
Mike

On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 6:06 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:

> Despite the name, we *have* been using it as both for quite some amount of
> time.  It *is* both dev and demo, and we recommend it as such on the list
> all the time.
>
> So there isn’t a decision to be made here as far as the status quo -> we
> use full dev as both dev and demo.
>
>
>
>
> On May 2, 2019 at 18:53:37, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklavcic@gmail.com
> )
> wrote:
>
> Whether or not full dev is, first and foremost, "dev" I think your
> questions being up a good point. If not full_dev for introducing new users,
> then what? If we want to provide a different env for letting people tinker
> and try it out than we do for development, that's completely fine. But we
> don't have that right now. So we can treat full_dev as multipurpose, or we
> can stop directing non-devs to it, or we can add something new. I honestly
> don't have any recommendations here. We've talked about docker instances
> for replacing in-memory components, but I'm still not sure that solves this
> problem, or adds more complexity. Given the current options on the table,
> I'm inclined to go with "full_dev" serves both dev and demo purposes. Otto,
> what do you think?
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 4:32 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwards@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I’ve commented on the PR, and I won’t repeat it here as well, I will
> > however ask again if we know and can list all of the usability issues
> that
> > surround this problem. IE. All the things that can happen or may happen
> > for people who are not Metron developers and committers who are using
> > full dev, because we keep recommending it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On May 2, 2019 at 17:38:30, Michael Miklavcic (
> michael.miklavcic@gmail.com
> > )
> > wrote:
> >
> > PR is up. I added the doc change to the metron-deployment README since
> this
> > serves as the gateway doc for all the VM instances. All of which would be
> > affected by the feature gap.
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1398
> >
> > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:37 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Here's the ticket I created to track it, which also references the Jira
> > > for the new UI feature.
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-2100
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:34 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> :-)
> > >>
> > >> I expect to have #2 out sometime today.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet <justinjleet@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I personally
> > >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees,
and
> > >>> Casey at
> > >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 on all of this. I don't like it either.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to
do
> with
> > >>> the
> > >>> > release. This is that discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading
> > what
> > >>> you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more
> > >>> seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the
> > >>> initial
> > >>> "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took
> > as
> > >>> a
> > >>> couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying
> > >>> things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far
> > down
> > >>> in
> > >>> the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement.
> > >>>
> > >>> Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of
> right
> > >>> now
> > >>> (which is subject to change as more discussion happens):
> > >>>
> > >>> - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and
> #3
> > >>> for 0.8.0.
> > >>> - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what
> > >>> he
> > >>> thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to
> > >>> see what
> > >>> his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up.
> > >>> - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2
> > >>> - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we
> > >>> proceed normally and cut RC2.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > >>> michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > I think your later point about using a project release version,
> from
> > >>> the
> > >>> > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that
> > >>> point, a
> > >>> > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through
> > >>> testing
> > >>> > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented.
> > >>> Which was
> > >>> > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published
> > >>> release. We
> > >>> > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And
> incidentally,
> > >>> it
> > >>> > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just
a dev
> > >>> box,
> > >>> > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came
> > from
> > >>> our
> > >>> > discussion about it.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors
was
> > that
> > >>> > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether
> it
> > >>> > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I
> > >>> personally
> > >>> > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees,
and
> > >>> Casey at
> > >>> > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8.
> New
> > >>> > information about that feature has changed my mind about what
to do
> > >>> about
> > >>> > it in the short term. I think we should move forward.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to
do
> with
> > >>> the
> > >>> > release. This is that discussion.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet <justinjleet@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > @Mike
> > >>> > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider
> > delaying
> > >>> a
> > >>> > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix?
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was
that
> we
> > >>> had
> > >>> > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more
things
> > have
> > >>> gone
> > >>> > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes,
and not
> > just
> > >>> > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to
be that
> > the
> > >>> > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after
> all,
> > >>> > there's
> > >>> > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but
> becomes
> > >>> > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question
I
> > asked
> > >>> > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value
that
> a
> > >>> > release
> > >>> > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No,
we have
> > >>> enough
> > >>> > > value to do a meaningful release".
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we
find
> > issues
> > >>> > that
> > >>> > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value
anymore,
> > >>> but to
> > >>> > be
> > >>> > > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown
up
> so
> > >>> much.
> > >>> > > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate
if
> it's
> > >>> > > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus
> on
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't
> > >>> worthwhile?"
> > >>> > may
> > >>> > > be different than mine.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right.
It
> > >>> really
> > >>> > > doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the
week
> > after
> > >>> or
> > >>> > > whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated
> > >>> when I
> > >>> > go
> > >>> > > to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed,
but
> it
> > >>> just
> > >>> > > never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely
> > >>> arbitrary,
> > >>> > but
> > >>> > > I think getting our improvements and fixes out there is
> important.
> > >>> One of
> > >>> > > the things we've done fairly well is put out releases at
a fairly
> > >>> decent
> > >>> > > cadence for a project this large. I really don't want to
set the
> > >>> > precedent
> > >>> > > of just increasingly pushing out point releases for stuff
like
> > this.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > > I think any open source project needs to strive to cut
releases
> > >>> > > regularly.
> > >>> > > > This is healthy for the project and community. It gets
new
> > >>> features
> > >>> > and
> > >>> > > > functionality out to the community so we can get feedback,
find
> > >>> what is
> > >>> > > > working and what is not, iterate and improve. You probably
> agree
> > >>> with
> > >>> > > > this.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > While releasing this week or next may not matter in
the grand
> > >>> scheme,
> > >>> > if
> > >>> > > we
> > >>> > > > want to cut releases regularly, then we need to bear
down and
> > just
> > >>> do
> > >>> > it.
> > >>> > > > Case in point, I opened the initial discussion for this
release
> > on
> > >>> > March
> > >>> > > > 13th [1] and it is now May 2nd and we have yet to release
7
> weeks
> > >>> > later.
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > --
> > >>> > > > [1]
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4f58649139f0aa6276f96febe1d0ecf9e6b3fb5b2b088cba1e3c4d81@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Miklavcic <
> > >>> > > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > As a more general question, can I ask why we're
feeling
> > pressure
> > >>> to
> > >>> > > push
> > >>> > > > > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy
to
> continue
> > >>> with
> > >>> > > > option
> > >>> > > > > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release.
But is there a
> > >>> reason
> > >>> > > why
> > >>> > > > we
> > >>> > > > > think it has to get out now, versus next week,
or the week
> > after?
> > >>> > Otto
> > >>> > > > > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment
or not, and
> I'm
> > >>> > unclear
> > >>> > > > why
> > >>> > > > > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's
no
> pressure
> > on
> > >>> > this,
> > >>> > > > > imho.
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler <
> > >>> ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how
I would have
> > related
> > >>> this
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > a
> > >>> > > > > > parser aggregation pr honestly.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell (
> > >>> shane.m.ardell@gmail.com
> > >>> > )
> > >>> > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread
from a few
> months
> > >>> back:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler
<
> > >>> > ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> > >>> > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > If you can find a link in the archives
for that thread,
> it
> > >>> would
> > >>> > > > really
> > >>> > > > > > > help.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one
sensor would work….
> as
> > >>> > > something
> > >>> > > > > > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea
from a higher
> > level
> > >>> that
> > >>> > > > would
> > >>> > > > > > > need some more thought though ( IE: what
if every sensor
> in
> > >>> the
> > >>> > ui
> > >>> > > > was
> > >>> > > > > a
> > >>> > > > > > > sensor group, and the existing entries
where just groups
> of
> > >>> 1 ).
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought
up the idea of a
> > release
> > >>> > > > > ourselves,
> > >>> > > > > > I
> > >>> > > > > > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm
this issue and get it
> > right
> > >>> > then
> > >>> > > > > > release.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor
(
> > >>> ftamas.mail@gmail.com)
> > >>> > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state
management strategy
> > >>> > involving
> > >>> > > a
> > >>> > > > > new
> > >>> > > > > > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion
thread on this a
> > few
> > >>> > months
> > >>> > > > ago
> > >>> > > > > > and
> > >>> > > > > > > we successfully convinced you about the
benefits. This is
> > >>> one of
> > >>> > > the
> > >>> > > > > > > reasons why this PR is going to be still
huge after
> > cleaning
> > >>> up
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > > > commit
> > >>> > > > > > > history. After you having a look at the
changes and the
> > >>> feature
> > >>> > > > itself,
> > >>> > > > > > > there's likely have questions about why
certain parts
> work
> > as
> > >>> > they
> > >>> > > > do.
> > >>> > > > > > The
> > >>> > > > > > > thing what I'd like to point out is that,
yes, it
> probably
> > >>> takes
> > >>> > > more
> > >>> > > > > > time
> > >>> > > > > > > to get it in.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > In order to being able to release the
RC, wouldn't it be
> an
> > >>> easy
> > >>> > > and
> > >>> > > > > > quick
> > >>> > > > > > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated
parsers to
> the
> > >>> > client
> > >>> > > as
> > >>> > > > > > they
> > >>> > > > > > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it
might be wrong,
> but
> > at
> > >>> > least
> > >>> > > > we
> > >>> > > > > > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned
PR gets
> > >>> ready to
> > >>> > be
> > >>> > > > > > merged
> > >>> > > > > > > to the master.
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin
Leet <
> > >>> > justinjleet@gmail.com>
> > >>> > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2
of 0.7.1 and #1 as a
> > >>> blocker
> > >>> > > for
> > >>> > > > > > 0.8.0.
> > >>> > > > > > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time
and effort.
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > The wall of text version:
> > >>> > > > > > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong
thing shown", but
> for
> > >>> > > completely
> > >>> > > > > > > > different reasons.
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what
the problem is: Our
> > "dev"
> > >>> > > > > environment
> > >>> > > > > > > > (whose very name implies the audience
is develops) uses
> a
> > >>> > > > > > > performance-based
> > >>> > > > > > > > advanced feature to ensure that
all our of sample flows
> > are
> > >>> > > > regularly
> > >>> > > > > > run
> > >>> > > > > > > > and produce data. This feature has
a bare minimal
> > >>> > implementation
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > > be
> > >>> > > > > > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently
is by default.
> > This
> > >>> is
> > >>> > > > because
> > >>> > > > > > of
> > >>> > > > > > > > the limited resources available
that previously
> resulted
> > >>> in us
> > >>> > > > > turning
> > >>> > > > > > > off
> > >>> > > > > > > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during
regular full dev
> > runs.
> > >>> > Right
> > >>> > > > now
> > >>> > > > > > > > however, this feature is not exposed
through the
> > >>> management UI,
> > >>> > > and
> > >>> > > > > > > > therefore it isn't obvious what
the implications are.
> Am
> > I
> > >>> > > missing
> > >>> > > > > > > anything
> > >>> > > > > > > > here?
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > For users actually choosing to use
the parser
> aggregation
> > >>> > feature
> > >>> > > > in
> > >>> > > > > a
> > >>> > > > > > > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect
substantially more
> > >>> care to
> > >>> > > be
> > >>> > > > > > > involved
> > >>> > > > > > > > given the lack of easy configuration
for it (after all,
> > why
> > >>> > would
> > >>> > > > you
> > >>> > > > > > > > bother running the aggregated parser
alongside the
> > regular
> > >>> > > parser?
> > >>> > > > > This
> > >>> > > > > > > > could be more explicitly stated,
but again that feels
> > like
> > >>> a
> > >>> > doc
> > >>> > > > > > problem.
> > >>> > > > > > > > Right now I could essentially provide
two of the same
> > >>> parser
> > >>> > and
> > >>> > > > > create
> > >>> > > > > > > the
> > >>> > > > > > > > same problem, so right now aggregation
is only special
> > >>> because
> > >>> > it
> > >>> > > > > runs
> > >>> > > > > > on
> > >>> > > > > > > > dev by default). This is, in my
opinion, primarily a
> > first
> > >>> > > > impression
> > >>> > > > > > > > problem and likely one of many areas
that could use
> > >>> improved
> > >>> > > > > > > documentation.
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue
pointed out here could
> > >>> mostly
> > >>> > be
> > >>> > > > > > > resolved
> > >>> > > > > > > > by documenting how the current aggregation
is done in
> > dev,
> > >>> and
> > >>> > > > > telling
> > >>> > > > > > > how
> > >>> > > > > > > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1
release, which is
> > >>> > primarily
> > >>> > > > bug
> > >>> > > > > > > > fixes. As can be inferred from my
vote, I don't think
> > this
> > >>> > > problem
> > >>> > > > > is a
> > >>> > > > > > > > problem that needs solving in a
point release. I would
> > >>> support
> > >>> > > > > > improving
> > >>> > > > > > > > the documentation, both full-dev
and for aggregation in
> > >>> general
> > >>> > > for
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > > > > > > 0.7.1 point release, while making
a 0.8.0 release
> > >>> contingent
> > >>> > upon
> > >>> > > > the
> > >>> > > > > > > > outstanding PRs to enable it in
the management UI.
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > There are a couple deeper issues,
imo, that I care
> > >>> > substantially
> > >>> > > > more
> > >>> > > > > > > about
> > >>> > > > > > > > than this in particular
> > >>> > > > > > > > * The dev environment is being used
as our intro for
> > users,
> > >>> > > because
> > >>> > > > > > it's
> > >>> > > > > > > > convenient for us to not maintain
more environments
> > (which
> > >>> has
> > >>> > > > been a
> > >>> > > > > > > major
> > >>> > > > > > > > pain point in the past). Worse,
the dev environment
> > >>> strongly
> > >>> > > > implies
> > >>> > > > > > it's
> > >>> > > > > > > > for Metron developers, rather than
people looking to
> > build
> > >>> on
> > >>> > top
> > >>> > > > of
> > >>> > > > > > > > Metron. We need an actual strategy
for providing end
> > users
> > >>> a
> > >>> > > clean
> > >>> > > > > > > > impression of Metron (this could
be clarifying what the
> > >>> > > > expectations
> > >>> > > > > of
> > >>> > > > > > > > full dev are, renaming it to something
like
> "full-demo",
> > >>> > > something
> > >>> > > > > more
> > >>> > > > > > > > involved, etc.). This is something
that we've needed
> for
> > >>> awhile
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > > > > general,
> > >>> > > > > > > > and includes larger topics like
improving our website,
> > >>> > > potentially
> > >>> > > > > > > > improving the site book, actually
publishing our
> Javadocs
> > >>> > > somewhere
> > >>> > > > > so
> > >>> > > > > > > > people can develop things easier,
publishing out info
> > about
> > >>> > > Stellar
> > >>> > > > > > > > functions in a better manner, etc.
> > >>> > > > > > > > * The fact that parsers are handled
in Ambari at all.
> > It's
> > >>> > awful
> > >>> > > > and
> > >>> > > > > > > leads
> > >>> > > > > > > > to situations like this. To the
best of my knowledge,
> > once
> > >>> we
> > >>> > can
> > >>> > > > do
> > >>> > > > > > > > chaining and aggregation in the
Management UI, we
> should
> > be
> > >>> > able
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > > > > > entirely divorce these two overlapping
domains. I'd
> love
> > >>> to see
> > >>> > > > > parsers
> > >>> > > > > > > > ripped out of Ambari, then full-dev
manages all the
> setup
> > >>> via
> > >>> > > REST.
> > >>> > > > > At
> > >>> > > > > > > that
> > >>> > > > > > > > point, we can easily tell everyone
to just use the
> > >>> management
> > >>> > UI.
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:23 AM Otto
Fowler <
> > >>> > > > ottobackwards@gmail.com>
> > >>> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > I think it would help if the
full consequences of
> > having
> > >>> the
> > >>> > UI
> > >>> > > > > show
> > >>> > > > > > > the
> > >>> > > > > > > > > wrong status where listed.
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Someone trying metron, will,
by default , see the
> wrong
> > >>> thing
> > >>> > > in
> > >>> > > > > the
> > >>> > > > > > UI
> > >>> > > > > > > > for
> > >>> > > > > > > > > the ONLY sensors they have
that are running and doing
> > >>> data.
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > What happens when they try
to start them to make them
> > >>> work?
> > >>> > > One,
> > >>> > > > > two
> > >>> > > > > > or
> > >>> > > > > > > > > all?
> > >>> > > > > > > > > What happens when he edits
them or try to add
> > >>> > transformations?
> > >>> > > > One,
> > >>> > > > > > two
> > >>> > > > > > > > or
> > >>> > > > > > > > > all?
> > >>> > > > > > > > > What other things can you do
with the sensors in the
> > ui?
> > >>> What
> > >>> > > > > > happens?
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Are we recommending aggregation
on the list and
> > >>> elsewhere for
> > >>> > > > > users?
> > >>> > > > > > > Are
> > >>> > > > > > > > > we recommending something that
is going to ensure
> they
> > >>> get
> > >>> > into
> > >>> > > > > this
> > >>> > > > > > > > > situation?
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > I think this is more than ‘just
the wrong thing
> shown’
> > >>> in the
> > >>> > > ui.
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > On April 30, 2019 at 20:48:10,
Michael Miklavcic (
> > >>> > > > > > > > > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com)
wrote:
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > The vote for RC1 did not pass
and I'd like to
> kickstart
> > >>> some
> > >>> > > > > > discussion
> > >>> > > > > > > > > about what we should do.
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > I started taking a look at
PR#1360 and it looks like
> > this
> > >>> > isn't
> > >>> > > > > quite
> > >>> > > > > > > as
> > >>> > > > > > > > > close to being able go in as
I had originally
> expected.
> > I
> > >>> > want
> > >>> > > to
> > >>> > > > > > talk
> > >>> > > > > > > > > about options here. It seems
to me that we can:
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > 1. Wait for PR#1360 to go in,
but this is likely
> going
> > to
> > >>> > take
> > >>> > > > more
> > >>> > > > > > > time
> > >>> > > > > > > > > than originally anticipated
> > >>> > > > > > > > > 2. Accept the issue in full
dev, but add some notes
> in
> > >>> the
> > >>> > > > > developer
> > >>> > > > > > > > > docs about the current feature
gap and why sensors
> > aren't
> > >>> > > showing
> > >>> > > > > > > status
> > >>> > > > > > > > in
> > >>> > > > > > > > > the management UI when aggregation
is enabled.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > 3. Find some other workable
UI solution.
> > >>> > > > > > > > > 4. Other option?
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > All things considered, I'm
personally leaning towards
> > #2
> > >>> in
> > >>> > the
> > >>> > > > > > > > short-term,
> > >>> > > > > > > > > but I think we should probably
talk about this a bit
> > >>> before
> > >>> > > > > deciding
> > >>> > > > > > > what
> > >>> > > > > > > > > RC2 should be.
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > >>> > > > > > > > > Mike
> > >>> > > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
>

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