Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

2018-08-15 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Works for me, that would be great. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:22 PM Casey Stella wrote: > If you like, I can volunteer to kick off a discuss thread when I submit the > board report. > > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM Michael Miklavcic < > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm also a

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

2018-08-15 Thread Casey Stella
If you like, I can volunteer to kick off a discuss thread when I submit the board report. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:21 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm also a fan of the 2-3 month time frame for releases. And I agree it > fits nicely with our board report. That

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

2018-08-15 Thread Michael Miklavcic
I'm also a fan of the 2-3 month time frame for releases. And I agree it fits nicely with our board report. That said, I think we should minimally kick off a DISCUSS at least every 2 months per the recommendations above. If it's warranted, great. If not, then we bring it up at a stated later time

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

2018-08-15 Thread Casey Stella
Strictly selfishly, I'd love for a release to happen quickly enough to have something to announce to the board during the reports. Once every 2 months or when a sufficiently complicated change happens sounds like a sensible cadence. I very much support a "how do we get to 1.0" discussion, maybe

Re: [DISCUSS] Release cadence

2018-08-15 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I'm a fan of a hybrid time/feature-based cadence. Something like "When 3 months has passed since our last release, or a sufficiently complicated change has been introduced to master (like merging a FB), a discuss thread is started". I'm primarily thinking of what the upgrade path looks like

[DISCUSS] Release cadence

2018-08-15 Thread Justin Leet
Hi all, In concert with the discuss thread on a potential 0.6.0 release, I'd also like start a discussion about our release cadence. We've generally been pretty relaxed around doing releases, and I'm curious what people's thoughts are on adopting a somewhat more regular schedule. Couple

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Matt Foley
Guys, heartfelt thanks for the appreciation. I'm really sorry I can't keep doing it, currently buried by unrelated work. Thanks, --Matt On 5/10/18, 10:34 AM, "Nick Allen" wrote: +1 to Justin And many thanks to Matt and all his hard work. On Thu, May

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Nick Allen
+1 to Justin And many thanks to Matt and all his hard work. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:13 PM, Ryan Merriman wrote: > Yes +1 to Justin being RM. Thank you for taking that on. > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Casey Stella wrote: > > > I'm +1 to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Ryan Merriman
Yes +1 to Justin being RM. Thank you for taking that on. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Casey Stella wrote: > I'm +1 to Justin being RM; he's going to have big shoes to fill with Matt > gone. ;) Also, if it wasn't obvious, deep and hearty thanks to Matt again > for being

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Casey Stella
I'm +1 to Justin being RM; he's going to have big shoes to fill with Matt gone. ;) Also, if it wasn't obvious, deep and hearty thanks to Matt again for being our RM. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:06 PM Ryan Merriman wrote: > Thanks for all your help Matt. > > On Thu, May 10,

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Ryan Merriman
Thanks for all your help Matt. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Matt for doing this for the community. > > Justin Leet as new lord commander of the Night's Watch? Aye, dilly, dilly. > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Justin Leet

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Thanks Matt for doing this for the community. Justin Leet as new lord commander of the Night's Watch? Aye, dilly, dilly. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Justin Leet wrote: > I'd be happy to to volunteer to take over for a while. > > Thanks to Matt for all the help

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Justin Leet
I'd be happy to to volunteer to take over for a while. Thanks to Matt for all the help through the last couple releases! Justin On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Casey Stella wrote: > Hi All, > > Matt Foley, our esteemed Release manager for the last couple releases, has >

[DISCUSS] Release Manager

2018-05-10 Thread Casey Stella
Hi All, Matt Foley, our esteemed Release manager for the last couple releases, has asked to be relieved. So, I'm calling on volunteers for the next release manager. It should be a committer and there are a few things that require a PMC member, I believe, but the release manager can ask for help

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-10 Thread Michael Miklavcic
If we're going to put Solr in the next release I think the index name change can wait for that release as well. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Nick Allen wrote: > > I tend to like grouping the es changes into one release (i.e. include > the index > name change) and solr

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-10 Thread Nick Allen
> I tend to like grouping the es changes into one release (i.e. include the > index name change) and solr into another (next release). Is anyone willing to volunteer to do the work for the index name change? If there are no takers, I think we need to move on and cut a release. On Thu, May

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-10 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I tend to like grouping the es changes into one release (i.e. include the index name change) and solr into another (next release). I think we go too long between releases myself and wouldn't be against doing two releases just a couple of months apart. Jon On Wed, May 9, 2018, 14:47 Michael

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
I don't have a strong opinion. The ES upgrade alone is a massive feature. It could make it easier to include the index change I mentioned along with Solr as a follow-up. I think if we did split, we could arguably start on the next release with Solr almost immediately. On Wed, May 9, 2018, 12:40

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
Thanks for the background, Jon. I'd like to see the recent plugin enhancements included in the next release. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:34 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > Nick - that was this >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Casey Stella
I don't think either of those block the release IMO. In fact, I can think of good reasons to wait on the Solr work since the feature branch is still active and incomplete. Regarding the indexing prefix, I'm all for that but I wouldn't wait on it. We have a ton of functionality and the

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
Simon brought up the idea of including the Solr enhancements (currently in a feature branch) for the release. What are people's opinions on this? Is this something that is a blocker for the release? IMO, there is so much already in master waiting to be released that I don't see a need to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
IMO, It would be nice to have, but I don't consider it a blocker for the release. Of course, if its something that we can knock out soon (this week?), then there would be no reason not to include it. Did you create a JIRA for this one so we can track it? On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Michael

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
Nick - that was this and this , which just barely snuck it into the same release cycle as 0.4.2. The plugin has

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Otto Fowler
I think we should have that. On May 9, 2018 at 14:16:23, Michael Miklavcic (michael.miklav...@gmail.com) wrote: One item we haven't gotten around to was redoing the index names to use a metron_ prefix. I'm the one that pushed the original DISCUSS thread on this, but haven't had a chance to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
One item we haven't gotten around to was redoing the index names to use a metron_ prefix. I'm the one that pushed the original DISCUSS thread on this, but haven't had a chance to advance it. Does anyone have any strong opinions on it? I originally thought it made sense to include alongside the

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Casey Stella
+1 to 0.5.0 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:05 PM Nick Allen wrote: > +1 to 0.5.0 > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I agree that it's probably time (more likely, overdue) for a release. > > Based off of looking at all of those

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
I'm also a +1 on 0.5.0. This is a fairly big release. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Nick Allen wrote: > +1 to 0.5.0 > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I agree that it's probably time (more likely, overdue) for a release. >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
+1 to 0.5.0 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:36 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > I agree that it's probably time (more likely, overdue) for a release. > Based off of looking at all of those changes I would also suggest going to > at least 0.5.x. > > It probably makes sense to take a look

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
Jon - What about all the work to use Bro's packaging mechanism for the Bro Plugin for Kafka? Wasn't that done after the repo split? I actually can't find the commit for that in the plugin repo after a quick look. Should that be considered part of the next release? Or did that happen longer

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
I went through the old thread [1] that Mike mentioned. I wanted to make sure that I did not drop the ball on anything we discussed there. We proposed the following. - Release N+1: Introduce Metaalerts running on ES 2.x - Release N+2: Cut-over to ES 5.x What actually happened? -

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I agree that it's probably time (more likely, overdue) for a release. Based off of looking at all of those changes I would also suggest going to at least 0.5.x. It probably makes sense to take a look at Upgrading.md (and related docs) to

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Good call - I thought that made our last release, but this would be the 2nd follow-on from when Nick originally posed a breakdown 4 months ago METRON-939: Upgrade ElasticSearch and Kibana (mmiklavc via mmiklavc) closes apache/metron#840

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
Oh, yes definitely (METRON-939) That one was a huge effort. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > We should also mention the Upgrade of ElasticSearch and Kibana > > Jon > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:49 PM Nick Allen wrote: > > > Oh,

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
We should also mention the Upgrade of ElasticSearch and Kibana Jon On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:49 PM Nick Allen wrote: > Oh, and also the Solr work that is currently in a feature branch. We would > have to get the work finished up and merged though. Sounds like we are >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
Oh, and also the Solr work that is currently in a feature branch. We would have to get the work finished up and merged though. Sounds like we are real close on that. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Nick Allen wrote: > The next part of the conversation would be, what

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
The next part of the conversation would be, what should the version number be? To help with that, I have tried to summarize the changes in the release. Of course, this is going to be heavily biased towards my own interests, so please feel free to chime in if I have missed anything. -

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Casey Stella
Ok, THAT is a beautifully useful command, Nick. We should totally have that as part of the scripts under dev-utilities. On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:14 PM Nick Allen wrote: > Something like this might be more digestible for these purposes. > > $git log --pretty="%cr %s"

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Nick Allen
Something like this might be more digestible for these purposes. $git log --pretty="%cr %s" tags/apache-metron-0.4.2-release..HEAD 88 minutes ago METRON-1530 Default proxy config settings in metron-contrib need to be updated (sardell via merrimanr) closes apache/metron#998 5 days ago METRON-1545

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
I get the following output (incidentally, I'm not sure if this is ok or not, but I noticed that this script pulled every tag and branch for any and all remotes I had defined in my local git repo) ~/devprojects/metron/dev-utilities/release-utils$ ./validate-jira-for-release --version=0.5.0

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Is this what you mean Otto? https://github.com/apache/metron/blob/24822dddc68c264f59723f5e17d423cd497f6807/dev-utilities/release-utils/validate-jira-for-release On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Casey Stella wrote: > I wasn't aware we had a script for that..is that in >

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Casey Stella
I wasn't aware we had a script for that..is that in dev-utilities/release-utils? On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:41 AM Otto Fowler wrote: > Can you run the issues included script and post that for us to see? > > > On May 9, 2018 at 11:14:11, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com)

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Otto Fowler
Can you run the issues included script and post that for us to see? On May 9, 2018 at 11:14:11, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) wrote: Is it about time for a release? I know we got some substantial performance changes in since the last release. I think we might have a justification for a

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Simon Elliston Ball
Definitely +1, with the Solr pieces going in too, does it make sense to bump the version to 0.5? On 9 May 2018 at 16:18, Michael Miklavcic wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Casey Stella wrote: > > > Is it about time for a release?

Re: [DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Michael Miklavcic
+1 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:13 AM, Casey Stella wrote: > Is it about time for a release? I know we got some substantial performance > changes in since the last release. I think we might have a justification > for a release. > > Casey >

[DISCUSS] Release?

2018-05-09 Thread Casey Stella
Is it about time for a release? I know we got some substantial performance changes in since the last release. I think we might have a justification for a release. Casey

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread Matt Foley
Good, I’ll build the RC tonight. Thanks Jon. --Matt From: "zeo...@gmail.com" <zeo...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:27 PM To: Matt Foley <mfo...@hortonworks.com> Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro' Otto, your un

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread Otto Fowler
s it convenient for you to do so today? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Matt >> >> >> >> From: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> >> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:13 AM >> To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@met

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread Matt Foley
>> >> --Matt >> >> >> >> From: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> >> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:13 AM >> To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> >> Cc: Matt Foley <ma

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
> Thanks, >> >> --Matt >> >> >> >> From: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> >> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:13 AM >> To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> >> Cc: Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org&g

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
2017 at 10:13 AM > To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> > Cc: Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> > Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro' > > > > I am more interested in getting a release cut. If me mov

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread Matt Foley
len <n...@nickallen.org> Date: Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:13 AM To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> Cc: Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro' I am more interested in ge

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread Kyle Richardson
and > > > > > > - document as much as we think appropriate regarding what it is, > how > > to > > > build it, and how to update it, > > > > > > and commit that before the 0.4.2 release. > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-07 Thread Justin Leet
that before the 0.4.2 release. > > > > > > > > What is the will of the community? > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Matt > > > > > > > > From: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> > > Reply-To: "dev@metron.apache.org&

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-04 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
...@nickallen.org> > Reply-To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> > Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:09 AM > To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Pl

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-04 Thread Matt Foley
of the community? Thanks, --Matt From: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> Reply-To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:09 AM To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org>

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-04 Thread Otto Fowler
: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> Reply-To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:09 AM To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> Subject: Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-12-04 Thread Matt Foley
release. What is the will of the community? Thanks, --Matt From: Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> Reply-To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 9:09 AM To: "dev@metron.apache.org" <dev@metron.apache.org> S

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-28 Thread Nick Allen
I'll add a bit to Jon's technical comments. * We only created a separate repo because it was a technical requirement to leverage the bro-pkg mechanism. * Leveraging the new bro-pkg mechanism has many advantages as outlined by Jon. * Enabling the bro-pkg mechanism is backwards compatible. I can

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-27 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
In an attempt to keep this from becoming unbearably long, I will try to keep my responses short, but I would be happy to elaborate. That's a fairly good timeline and summary, but here are some clarifications in corresponding order: - The plugin history is quite short and you can probably get a

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-27 Thread Otto Fowler
I am not sure that our use of the plugin necessarily equates to it being implicitly coupled to Metron. It seems like the Right Thing To Do™, esp. for an Apache project would be to make this available for use by the greater bro community. Unless we expect to do extensive iterative work on the

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-27 Thread Matt Foley
[Please pardon me that the below is a little labored. I’m trying to understand the implications for both release and use, which requires some explanation as well as the two questions needed. Q1 and Q2 below are probably the same question, asked in slightly different contexts. Please consider

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-27 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
The reason we decided to do that was because it is the best way for it to be used (and thus improved on and quality tested) by the broader bro community. If it's any indication of it's popularity, there was just an email on the bro mailing list about the plugin a few days ago, and I've already

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-27 Thread James Sirota
I agree with Nick. Since the plugin is tightly coupled with Metron why not just pull it into the main repo and version it with the rest of the code? Do we really need the second repo for the plug-in? Thanks, James 16.11.2017, 08:06, "Nick Allen" : >>  I would suggest

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-22 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I propose that we coordinate the review of METRON-1329 and METRON-1313 , then merge METRON-1329, pursue a 0.1 release for apache/metron-bro-plugin-kafka, and then finalize METRON-1313

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Matt Foley
There’s two issues, I think: (1) We’d like to be able to version and evolve the main body of Metron and the metron-bro-plugin-kafka separately. (2) We want to be able to assure that each release of Metron has a known-working version of metron-bro-plugin-kafka At a very simple level, we can

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Matt Foley
There’s two issues, I think: (1) We’d like to be able to version and evolve the main body of Metron and the metron-bro-plugin-kafka separately. (2) We want to be able to assure that each release of Metron has a known-working version of metron-bro-plugin-kafka At a very simple level, we can

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I expect a few version changes up front to add some new features to the package (0.1 for the initial release, 0.{2..n} for some new features, 1.0 when we stabilize) but after that it will probably only be updated to follow kafka/librdkafka updates. Jon On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:10 AM Otto

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Otto Fowler
How often to we expect to change this? If it is effectively pinned then a release process is not that bad. On November 16, 2017 at 10:06:53, Nick Allen (n...@nickallen.org) wrote: > > I would suggest that we institute a release procedure for the package > itself, but I don't think it

Re: [MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Nick Allen
> > I would suggest that we institute a release procedure for the package > itself, but I don't think it necessarily has to line up with metron > releases (happy to be persuaded otherwise). Then we can just link metron > to metron-bro-plugin-kafka by pointing to specific > metron-bro-plugin-kafka

[MENTORS][DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Nick Allen
+ Restarting the thread to include mentors. The code of the 'Kafka Plugin for Bro' is now maintained in the external repository that we set up a while back. - Metron Core: git://git.apache.org/metron.git - Kafka Plugin for Bro: git://git.apache.org/metron-bro-plugin-kafka.git (Q) Do we

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I would suggest that we institute a release procedure for the package itself, but I don't think it necessarily has to line up with metron releases (happy to be persuaded otherwise). Then we can just link metron to metron-bro-plugin-kafka by pointing to specific metron-bro-plugin-kafka releases

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Casey Stella
I'd recommend restarting this thread with this subject and including [MENTORS] in the subject line. At least I don't know the answer to this and I'd want broader visibility so we get more responses. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Nick Allen wrote: > The code of the 'Kafka

[DISCUSS] Release Procedure + 'Kafka Plugin for Bro'

2017-11-16 Thread Nick Allen
The code of the 'Kafka Plugin for Bro' is now maintained in the external repository that we set up a while back. Do we need to change anything in the release procedure to account for this?

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-25 Thread Matt Foley
Thanks, Jon. I’ve committed the patch. --Matt On 10/25/17, 9:26 AM, "zeo...@gmail.com" wrote: I still kind of like the build image historically, since not everybody who interfaces with our project will _know_ that the build must always succeed for a release, but I

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-25 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I still kind of like the build image historically, since not everybody who interfaces with our project will _know_ that the build must always succeed for a release, but I agree that this is a clean approach so I rolled back the wiki changes. Thanks, Jon On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 2:34 PM Matt

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-24 Thread Matt Foley
The release wouldn’t have been made if the build didn’t succeed. And the Release Manager doesn’t need one more fiddly manual edit to do. I recommend the Release Process instructions be put back, and instead we incorporate https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/815 Rational in

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-24 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
Hmm, I kind of like it as a historical validation/confirmation of build success, but I can see where you are coming from. Here is the wiki diff, feel free to critique/alter. Jon On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-24 Thread Kyle Richardson
+1 I agree with Matt and Justin. The Travis build widget doesn't make sense in the published release documentation. No sense in fixing retrospectively. -Kyle On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 3:13 PM Matt Foley wrote: > I agree with Justin. This micro-feature is intended as a

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-23 Thread Matt Foley
I agree with Justin. This micro-feature is intended as a github widget, which causes the top-level README to give all viewers an immediate flag whether the build is healthy or not. It does not belong in a rendered site-book. Removing the widget during site-book build, can be done with a

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-23 Thread Justin Leet
I'd argue it shouldn't be in the site-book at all. Presumably we aren't releasing while Travis is broken, so it's not useful information for anyone looking at docs. It just carries over from the main README. Seems like we should just scrub it when we do the other fixes to the READMEs to make them

[DISCUSS] Release Process Update

2017-10-23 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
Today I was poking around the Metron site and documentation, and I noticed that the site-book's travis build status image is pointing to master for all of our releases. We should probably update the release process to pin this