I’m ok if it is not. Suggesting because it is a series of prs. The end goal is Ubuntu Ambari + Deb and full-dev-ubuntu right?
On December 15, 2017 at 10:03:23, Nick Allen (n...@nickallen.org) wrote: > This seems like a feature branch candidate. Personally, I don't see the need for a feature branch on this one. It won't involve big, architectural changes. The touch points are constrained. Everything that we currently have will continue to work as it always had after each PR. If you feel strongly the other way, please provide your reasoning to help me understand. 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 > >
