+1 for the splitting.

Thanks.

Regards,
Swapan.









On 1/28/18, 11:58 AM, "Don Bosco Durai" <[email protected]> wrote:

>+1
>
>
>On 1/28/18, 11:56 AM, "Dmytro Grinenko" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>    +1
>    
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From: Siddharth Wagle [mailto:[email protected]] 
>    Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 7:19 AM
>    To: [email protected]
>    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
>    
>    
>
>

Reply via email to