Hi Guys - I want to follow-up on this discussion. It sounds like most people are in agreement with the general approach.
A lot of people have been working hard on Metaalerts and Elasticsearch. I have checked-in with those doing the heavy lifting and have compiled a more detailed plan based on where we are at now. To the best of my knowledge here is the plan of attack for finishing out this effort. (1) First, METRON-1289 needs to go in. This one was a fairly big effort and I am hearing that we are pretty close. (2) METRON-1294 fixes an issue in how field types are looked-up. (3) METRON-1290 is next. While this may have been fixed in M-1289, there may be some test cases we want from this PR. (4) METRON-1301 addresses a problem with the sorting logic. (5) METRON-1291 fixes an issue with escalation of metaalerts. (6) That leads us to Raghu's UI work in METRON-1252. This introduces the UI bits that depend on all the previous backend work. (7) At this point, we should have our best effort at running Metaalerts on Elasticsearch 2.x. I propose that we cut a release here. (8) After we cut the release, we can introduce the work for ES 5.x in METRON-939. I know we will need lots of help testing and reviewing this one. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will try and send out updates as we make progress. On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:03 PM, zeo...@gmail.com <zeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree, I think it's very reasonable to move in line with Nick's > proposal. I would also suggest that we outline what the target versions > would be to add in the METRON-777 components, since it has been functional > for a very long time but not reviewed and has some really rockstar > improvements. > > Jon > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:56 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I think the ES cutover should be the start of the 0.5.x series, and we > > continue on with 0.4.x for the > > metadata improvements etc. We could chose to focus 0.5.x’s first > releases > > on not only ES but > > getting a handle on kibana and the mpack situation as well. > > > > > > > > > > On November 6, 2017 at 12:48:45, Michael Miklavcic ( > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > I agree with your proposal, Nick. I think having a stabilizing release > > prior to upgrading ES/Kibana makes sense. > > > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > > > > > I would like to start a discussion around upcoming releases. We have a > > > couple separate significant tracks of work that we need to reconcile in > > our > > > release schedule. > > > > > > (1) We have had (and have in review) a good number of bug fixes > required > > to > > > support Metaalerts on the existing Elasticsearch 2.x infrastructure. > > > > > > > > > (2) We also have ongoing work to upgrade our infrastructure to > > > Elasticsearch 5.x, which will not be backwards compatible. > > > > > > > > > I would like to see a release that has our best work on ES 2.x before > we > > > migrate to 5.x. I would propose the following. > > > > > > Release N+1: Introduce Metaalerts running on ES 2.x > > > > > > Release N+2: Cut-over to ES 5.x > > > > > > > > > (Q) Is it worth cutting a separate release for ES 2.x? Is there a > better > > > way to handle the cut-over to 5.x? > > > > > > -- > > Jon >
