:-) I expect to have #2 out sometime today.
On Thu, May 2, 2019, 12:11 PM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I personally > > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey > at > > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. > > > > +1 on all of this. I don't like it either. > > > > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the > > release. This is that discussion. > > > I'm going to be honest, my response was a combination of misreading what > you said and thinking you were proposing delaying the release more > seriously and feeling a bit blindsided by a perceived move from the initial > "take more time than originally anticipated" (which in my head I took as a > couple days) to "versus next week, or the week after" (where delaying > things weeks is something I personally would like not buried so far down in > the thread). Totally my bad, sorry about that. > > Other than that, it sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. > > Here's my current understanding of the state and consensus as of right now > (which is subject to change as more discussion happens): > > - Most of the people in the thread are in favor of #2 for 0.7.1 and #3 > for 0.8.0. > - I don't believe I've seen an explicit response from Otto on what he > thinks about doing this, and from a personal perspective like to see > what > his opinion is as the person who originally brought it up. > - Mike said he's going to kick out a PR that addresses #2 > - After that undergoes the normal review process and is merged, we > proceed normally and cut RC2. > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:14 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think your later point about using a project release version, from the > > example of using other projects, is a valid one. To exactly that point, > a > > community member (Otto) brought up an issue/bug they found through > testing > > that they were previously unaware of and did not find documented. Which > was > > argued would be confusing to someone wanting to use a published release. > We > > discussed the implications of this bug/feature gap. And incidentally, it > > sounds like some people see full dev as more useful than just a dev box, > > others do not, independent of what we chose to name it. That came from > our > > discussion about it. > > > > The expectation I had from my discussion with the contributors was that > > this fix for aggregation was ready. So to your point about whether it > > belonged or not, I'm inclined to say yes, had it been ready. I personally > > don't like this feature gap in full dev. It seems Otto agrees, and Casey > at > > the very least sees it as enough of an issue to gate us from 0.8. New > > information about that feature has changed my mind about what to do about > > it in the short term. I think we should move forward. > > > > Our vote landed 2-2. We are having a discussion about what to do with the > > release. This is that discussion. > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 10:52 AM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > @Mike > > > I have a different question: Why is this enough to consider delaying a > > > release in the first place for a fairly involved fix? > > > > > > There was a discuss thread, where the general agreement was that we had > > > enough value to do a release (Over a month ago. And more things have > gone > > > into master since then). There's a good number of fixes, and not just > > > trivial ones either. The general consensus here seems to be that the > > > management UI issue is fairly minor for a point release (after all, > > there's > > > been multiple people who think option 2 is sufficient), but becomes > > > important if we want to release a minor version. The question I asked > > > myself about this was ""Does this issue detract enough value that a > > release > > > isn't worthwhile?" and my answer was, and still is, "No, we have enough > > > value to do a meaningful release". > > > > > > I'm fine with delaying or cancelling a release because we find issues > > that > > > are severe enough or we don't think there's enough value anymore, but > to > > be > > > entirely honest, I'm absolutely shocked this issue has blown up so > much. > > > However, if you want to have a discuss thread to reevaluate if it's > > > worthwhile to do a release, go for it. The communities' calculus on > the > > > "Does this issue detract enough value that a release isn't worthwhile?" > > may > > > be different than mine. > > > > > > Having said all that, to a large extent, I think you're right. It > really > > > doesn't matter* that much* if we release next week or the week after or > > > whenever. But at the same time I personally get super frustrated when I > > go > > > to use a project, find a bug, it's already known and fixed, but it just > > > never puts out a released version. Every cutoff is largely arbitrary, > > but > > > I think getting our improvements and fixes out there is important. One > of > > > the things we've done fairly well is put out releases at a fairly > decent > > > cadence for a project this large. I really don't want to set the > > precedent > > > of just increasingly pushing out point releases for stuff like this. > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 12:52 PM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I think any open source project needs to strive to cut releases > > > regularly. > > > > This is healthy for the project and community. It gets new features > > and > > > > functionality out to the community so we can get feedback, find what > is > > > > working and what is not, iterate and improve. You probably agree > with > > > > this. > > > > > > > > While releasing this week or next may not matter in the grand scheme, > > if > > > we > > > > want to cut releases regularly, then we need to bear down and just do > > it. > > > > Case in point, I opened the initial discussion for this release on > > March > > > > 13th [1] and it is now May 2nd and we have yet to release 7 weeks > > later. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4f58649139f0aa6276f96febe1d0ecf9e6b3fb5b2b088cba1e3c4d81@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:51 AM Michael Miklavcic < > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > As a more general question, can I ask why we're feeling pressure to > > > push > > > > > out a release in the first place? Again, I'm happy to continue with > > > > option > > > > > 2. Let's move forward and get out the release. But is there a > reason > > > why > > > > we > > > > > think it has to get out now, versus next week, or the week after? > > Otto > > > > > pointed out a legitimate issue, dev environment or not, and I'm > > unclear > > > > why > > > > > we have an issue with waiting for the fix. There's no pressure on > > this, > > > > > imho. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019, 9:12 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I remember this now, but I’m not sure how I would have related > this > > > to > > > > a > > > > > > parser aggregation pr honestly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 07:54:13, Shane Ardell ( > shane.m.ard...@gmail.com > > ) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's a link to the ngrx discussion thread from a few months > back: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/06a59ea42e8d9a9dea5f90aab4011e44434555f8b7f3cf21297c7c87@%3Cdev.metron.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:17 PM Otto Fowler < > > ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you can find a link in the archives for that thread, it > would > > > > really > > > > > > > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don’t think sending them up as one sensor would work…. as > > > something > > > > > > > quick. I think it is an interesting idea from a higher level > that > > > > would > > > > > > > need some more thought though ( IE: what if every sensor in the > > ui > > > > was > > > > > a > > > > > > > sensor group, and the existing entries where just groups of 1 > ). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can see, we have brought up the idea of a release > > > > > ourselves, > > > > > > I > > > > > > > don’t see why we don’t just swarm this issue and get it right > > then > > > > > > release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 2, 2019 at 04:16:31, Tamás Fodor (ftamas.m...@gmail.com > ) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In PR#1360 we introduced a new state management strategy > > involving > > > a > > > > > new > > > > > > > module called Ngrx. We had a discussion thread on this a few > > months > > > > ago > > > > > > and > > > > > > > we successfully convinced you about the benefits. This is one > of > > > the > > > > > > > reasons why this PR is going to be still huge after cleaning up > > the > > > > > > commit > > > > > > > history. After you having a look at the changes and the feature > > > > itself, > > > > > > > there's likely have questions about why certain parts work as > > they > > > > do. > > > > > > The > > > > > > > thing what I'd like to point out is that, yes, it probably > takes > > > more > > > > > > time > > > > > > > to get it in. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In order to being able to release the RC, wouldn't it be an > easy > > > and > > > > > > quick > > > > > > > fix on the backend if it sent the aggregated parsers to the > > client > > > as > > > > > > they > > > > > > > were one sensor? It's just an idea, it might be wrong, but at > > least > > > > we > > > > > > > shouldn't have to wait until the aforementioned PR gets ready > to > > be > > > > > > merged > > > > > > > to the master. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 4:16 PM Justin Leet < > > justinjl...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Short version: I'm in favor of #2 of 0.7.1 and #1 as a > blocker > > > for > > > > > > 0.8.0. > > > > > > > > #3 seems like a total waste of time and effort. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The wall of text version: > > > > > > > > I agree this isn't "just the wrong thing shown", but for > > > completely > > > > > > > > different reasons. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be extremely clear about what the problem is: Our "dev" > > > > > environment > > > > > > > > (whose very name implies the audience is develops) uses a > > > > > > > performance-based > > > > > > > > advanced feature to ensure that all our of sample flows are > > > > regularly > > > > > > run > > > > > > > > and produce data. This feature has a bare minimal > > implementation > > > to > > > > > be > > > > > > > > enabled via Ambari, which it currently is by default. This is > > > > because > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the limited resources available that previously resulted in > us > > > > > turning > > > > > > > off > > > > > > > > Yaf, and therefore testing it during regular full dev runs. > > Right > > > > now > > > > > > > > however, this feature is not exposed through the management > UI, > > > and > > > > > > > > therefore it isn't obvious what the implications are. Am I > > > missing > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For users actually choosing to use the parser aggregation > > feature > > > > in > > > > > a > > > > > > > > non-full-dev environment, I'd expect substantially more care > to > > > be > > > > > > > involved > > > > > > > > given the lack of easy configuration for it (after all, why > > would > > > > you > > > > > > > > bother running the aggregated parser alongside the regular > > > parser? > > > > > This > > > > > > > > could be more explicitly stated, but again that feels like a > > doc > > > > > > problem. > > > > > > > > Right now I could essentially provide two of the same parser > > and > > > > > create > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > same problem, so right now aggregation is only special > because > > it > > > > > runs > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > dev by default). This is, in my opinion, primarily a first > > > > impression > > > > > > > > problem and likely one of many areas that could use improved > > > > > > > documentation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quite frankly, I think the issue pointed out here could > mostly > > be > > > > > > > resolved > > > > > > > > by documenting how the current aggregation is done in dev, > and > > > > > telling > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > to change it. Especially for a 0.x.1 release, which is > > primarily > > > > bug > > > > > > > > fixes. As can be inferred from my vote, I don't think this > > > problem > > > > > is a > > > > > > > > problem that needs solving in a point release. I would > support > > > > > > improving > > > > > > > > the documentation, both full-dev and for aggregation in > general > > > for > > > > > the > > > > > > > > 0.7.1 point release, while making a 0.8.0 release contingent > > upon > > > > the > > > > > > > > outstanding PRs to enable it in the management UI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are a couple deeper issues, imo, that I care > > substantially > > > > more > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > than this in particular > > > > > > > > * The dev environment is being used as our intro for users, > > > because > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > convenient for us to not maintain more environments (which > has > > > > been a > > > > > > > major > > > > > > > > pain point in the past). Worse, the dev environment strongly > > > > implies > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > > for Metron developers, rather than people looking to build on > > top > > > > of > > > > > > > > Metron. We need an actual strategy for providing end users a > > > clean > > > > > > > > impression of Metron (this could be clarifying what the > > > > expectations > > > > > of > > > > > > > > full dev are, renaming it to something like "full-demo", > > > something > > > > > more > > > > > > > > involved, etc.). This is something that we've needed for > awhile > > > in > > > > > > > general, > > > > > > > > and includes larger topics like improving our website, > > > potentially > > > > > > > > improving the site book, actually publishing our Javadocs > > > somewhere > > > > > so > > > > > > > > people can develop things easier, publishing out info about > > > Stellar > > > > > > > > functions in a better manner, etc. > > > > > > > > * The fact that parsers are handled in Ambari at all. It's > > awful > > > > and > > > > > > > leads > > > > > > > > to situations like this. To the best of my knowledge, once we > > can > > > > do > > > > > > > > chaining and aggregation in the Management UI, we should be > > able > > > to > > > > > > > > entirely divorce these two overlapping domains. I'd love to > see > > > > > parsers > > > > > > > > ripped out of Ambari, then full-dev manages all the setup via > > > REST. > > > > > At > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > point, we can easily tell everyone to just use the management > > UI. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:23 AM Otto Fowler < > > > > ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would help if the full consequences of having > the > > UI > > > > > show > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > wrong status where listed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone trying metron, will, by default , see the wrong > thing > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > > UI > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > the ONLY sensors they have that are running and doing data. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What happens when they try to start them to make them work? > > > One, > > > > > two > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > all? > > > > > > > > > What happens when he edits them or try to add > > transformations? > > > > One, > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > all? > > > > > > > > > What other things can you do with the sensors in the ui? > What > > > > > > happens? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are we recommending aggregation on the list and elsewhere > for > > > > > users? > > > > > > > Are > > > > > > > > > we recommending something that is going to ensure they get > > into > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > situation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think this is more than ‘just the wrong thing shown’ in > the > > > ui. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On April 30, 2019 at 20:48:10, Michael Miklavcic ( > > > > > > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote for RC1 did not pass and I'd like to kickstart > some > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > about what we should do. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I started taking a look at PR#1360 and it looks like this > > isn't > > > > > quite > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > close to being able go in as I had originally expected. I > > want > > > to > > > > > > talk > > > > > > > > > about options here. It seems to me that we can: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Wait for PR#1360 to go in, but this is likely going to > > take > > > > more > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > > > than originally anticipated > > > > > > > > > 2. Accept the issue in full dev, but add some notes in the > > > > > developer > > > > > > > > > docs about the current feature gap and why sensors aren't > > > showing > > > > > > > status > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > the management UI when aggregation is enabled. > > > > > > > > > 3. Find some other workable UI solution. > > > > > > > > > 4. Other option? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All things considered, I'm personally leaning towards #2 in > > the > > > > > > > > short-term, > > > > > > > > > but I think we should probably talk about this a bit before > > > > > deciding > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > RC2 should be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
