That sounds good, Justin. It's a completely valid point. I just wasn't sure how far we needed to take it.
Is there anything I can do in my current open PRs to address this concern? * https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/868 * https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/869 Another alternative would be to address this in the "full-dev-ubuntu" PR when that lands. Which do you prefer? Or is there another way? On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:36 AM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > By 'direct support" I just meant that it becomes an installation target we > semi-actively maintain a specific installation method for. > > Right now we don't need to communicate that all because we don't provide > anything other RPMs. The cutoff is implicit: There's convenience RPMs you > can build, or you need to get it working manually. Post Debs, this isn't > the case anymore. The proposal is "We have convenience RPMs that are > regularly run up. We have convenience Debs that are at least occasionally > checked and you probably should be able to run up. Finally, you can do > things manually". > > All I'm saying is that I would like that made explicit in our docs when we > integrate this work, so that people know what they're getting into. > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >> > >> > >> > >
