I'd say that if a release is this imminent that we had better notify the release manager who will make a release announcement, Nick. Matt, are you tuning in to this?
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > 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 > > >
