Github user anandsubbu commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/852
Hi @nickwallen , I found one more reference to quick dev -
Github user JonZeolla commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/849
Instead of trying to explaining my position, I threw together a quick PR to
illustrate my thoughts. Feel free to take another approach. I tested it with
`g++` configured, unconfigured, and not
Github user ottobackwards commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/852
+1 by inspection
---
Github user nickwallen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/852
Thanks @ottobackwards . I just pushed that fix, plus some other little
things I found.
---
As long as there is not a large chuck of custom deployment that has to be
maintained docker sounds ideal.
I would like to understand what it would take to create the docker e2e env.
On November 28, 2017 at 17:27:13, Ryan Merriman (merrim...@gmail.com) wrote:
Currently the e2e tests for our
Github user ottobackwards commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/852
I think you missed the inventory/quick-dev-platform stuff
---
Currently the e2e tests for our Alerts UI depends on full dev being up and
running. This is not a good long term solution because it forces a
contributor/reviewer to run the tests manually with full dev running. It
would be better if the backend services could be made available to the e2e
tests
GitHub user merrimanr opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/853
METRON-1337: List of facets should not be hardcoded
## Contributor Comments
This PR makes the list of facet fields in the Alerts UI configurable.
There is now a "search.facet.fields" setting
GitHub user nickwallen opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/852
METRON-1239 Drop extra dev environments
Per the previous discussion referenced in JIRA, this PR drops support for
the Quick Dev and Code Lab environments. These have been effectively dead for
Github user nickwallen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/847
Looks good, Jon. I agree with what you said. Let's get the release
process sorted before we commit this one.
---
Github user nickwallen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/812
Bump. @JonZeolla You are good to go here. Let me know if you need help
merging/deploying the changes.
---
Github user nickwallen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/830
Hi @iraghumitra - Is this PR still valid? Can you deconflict when you get
some cycles?
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/846
---
Github user nickwallen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/836
+1 I like this @JonZeolla. This reads more clearly IMHO.
---
Github user nickwallen commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/849
> Is this the expected output?
I agree with @ottobackwards . That looks like what I would expect to see.
@JonZeolla I assume since you asked, it is not what you would expect.
GitHub user nickwallen opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/851
METRON-1336 Patching Can Result in Bad Configuration
The following problems are addressed in this PR.
* A patch can be constructed that when applied creates an invalid
configuration.
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
Github user JonZeolla commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/847
Thanks Otto. Leaving this one open for now, until things get sorted on the
mailing list.
---
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/848
---
Github user JonZeolla commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/848
Ahh sorry, missed that was in the docs as well. Ok, looks good
---
Github user ottobackwards commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/848
@JonZeolla I would like to change the readme example to include the
quick_dev skip.
---
Github user ottobackwards commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/823
I'm ok with the functions as they are, but if we are not going to verify
the parameters, then remove the documented restriction.
---
Github user JonZeolla commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/848
+1, this is awesome work thanks Otto. Tested via
```
cd metron-deployment/packaging/docker/ansible-docker/
docker build -t ansible-docker:2.0.0.2 .
docker run -it -v
23 matches
Mail list logo
