> I suggest we make sure to very explicitly document what the level of support, testing, etc. for everything is. If we're not requiring everything to be tested against Ubuntu, we should make sure to document exactly what the difference in expectation is along with it being in some categorization that makes it obvious where it falls (e.g. CentOS is primary support, Ubuntu is best effort, or whatever).
Do we do this anywhere else today? My thinking is hey, this is an open source project. We don't provide 'direct support' for anything. At least, that's not what I signed up for. :) > Also, it sounds like Nick is suggesting that we don't have devs test against both CentOS and Ubuntu, but potentially that's only true for non- UbuntuPRs. If CentOS is the gold standard, I expect not only that Ubuntu work, but that CentOS work as well. This implies that Ubuntu changes get tested against both (i.e. dev needs to be run up for both OSs). Yes, agreed. I was thinking that goes without saying, but it is good to make it clear. On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we start adding direct support for systems other than CentOS (which I'm > in favor of), I suggest we make sure to very explicitly document what the > level of support, testing, etc. for everything is. > > If we're not requiring everything to be tested against Ubuntu, we should > make sure to document exactly what the difference in expectation is along > with it being in some categorization that makes it obvious where it falls > (e.g. CentOS is primary support, Ubuntu is best effort, or whatever). > > Also, it sounds like Nick is suggesting that we don't have devs test > against both CentOS and Ubuntu, but potentially that's only true for > non-Ubuntu PRs. If CentOS is the gold standard, I expect not only that > Ubuntu work, but that CentOS work as well. This implies that Ubuntu > changes get tested against both (i.e. dev needs to be run up for both OSs). > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This sounds awesome. The hortonworks article is getting older ever day. >> This seems like a feature branch candidate. >> >> On December 14, 2017 at 18:22:33, Nick Allen (n...@nickallen.org) wrote: >> >> I've done some work to get the MPack working on Ubuntu. I'd like to get >> that work packaged up and contributed back to Apache. I think it would be >> genuinly useful to the community. >> >> Here is how I was thinking about tackling that through a series of PRs. >> >> 1. Create the DEBs necessary for installing on Ubuntu. See PR #868. >> >> 2. Submit 3 or 4 separate PRs that enhance the existing MPack so that it >> works on both CentOS and Ubuntu. I honestly am not sure how many will fall >> out of the work that I've done, but I will try to chop it up logically so >> that it is easy to review. >> >> 3. Create a "Full Dev" equivalent for Ubuntu so that we can see the >> end-to-end install work for Ubuntu in an automated fashion. >> >> >> ** I do not expect developers to test their PRs on both CentOS and Ubuntu. >> I think the existing CentOS "Full Dev" should remain as the gold standard >> that we test PRs against. No changes there. >> >> Let me know if you have feedback or thoughts on this. >> >> Chao >> > >
