Here are the JIRAs that fell out of this discussion. Work will progress in this order.
- METRON-1351 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1351> Create Installable Packages for Ubuntu Trusty - METRON-1371 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1371> Enhance Mpack for Ubuntu Deployments - METRON-1370 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1370> Create Full Dev Equivalent for Ubuntu On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > > It might be worthwhile constructing a JIRA in apache to capture the > follow-on > tasks required to bring Ubuntu into a status where it's more prominent in > our testing cycle. > > Agreed. I can take care of that. > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Nick is right that the ASF does not provide support in an explicit way >> (i.e. there are no pathways to get *prioritized* support via SLAs, etc.), >> but it is expected that apache projects provide support via mailing lists >> and answered by volunteers. Specifically, this is the crux of the >> "community over code" credo. That philosophical point aside, I think what >> Justin may be intending is "support" in the sense of how much do we fold >> Ubuntu into our testing cycle. It could be said that we tacitly "support" >> configurations which we test, beyond that caveat emptor. Which is to say >> that questions on the mailing lists for Metron on Centos will likely be >> answered whereas Metron on OpenBSD might be met with more skepticism or >> not >> answered. >> >> I would argue that we start with Nick's very generous contribution without >> forcing developers to test their code against it. Eventually, when we >> have >> a full-dev that spins up ubuntu, I'd argue that we could consider folding >> it into our testing plans for an RC. >> >> Regarding whether it fits in a feature branch, I think that as long as >> each >> PR stands alone in providing value, we can avoid a feature branch. It >> might be worthwhile constructing a JIRA in apache to capture the follow-on >> tasks required to bring Ubuntu into a status where it's more prominent in >> our testing cycle. >> >> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: >> >> > > The end goal is Ubuntu Ambari + Deb and full-dev-ubuntu right? >> > >> > That list sounds good to me. >> > >> > (Plus, some way of dealing with Justin's point about support.) >> > >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > >> > >
