Github user justinleet commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/563
@nickwallen @merrimanr Looks like the REST Ambari stuff. I probably should
have caught it in review, but it looks like our blueprint needs updating to
reflect it.
---
If your project
Github user mmiklavc commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/566
Kick
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or
GitHub user mmiklavc reopened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/566
METRON-932: Change HLLP Stellar functions to accept empty lists
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-932
I changed the unit tests and README to reflect the new
Github user mmiklavc closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/566
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the
Hi – any pointers on how to get access?
Thanks,
Satish
If you have not added a slot to storm, then configuring and adding a new
parser will never work, but never fail.
You just won’t see any data in the topology stats.
I don’t see this documented in the rest api or the configuration manager.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
If it normal that I see the following error during install with the new
repo?
[root@metron1 yum.repos.d]# yum install ambari-server -y
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
* base: mirror.sjc02.svwh.net
* epel: mirrors.kernel.org
* extras:
Github user merrimanr commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-metron/pull/500
Thanks @ottobackwards!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
So I'm not hearing any opposition to the idea. What do we need to handle
for the eventual 0.4.0 release? I really only see a need to update the
release documentation to account for this. Thanks,
Jon
On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 2:39 PM Matt Foley wrote:
> In previous discussion