Re: Authorization for Configuration

2018-12-03 Thread Ali Nazemian
Would it be based on the operation as well? Like be able to read or modify. So is this scenario valid? from the user experience perspective, a user may be authorised to change the indexing/enrichment config (because there is only one topology for them), but because he/she doesn't have sufficient

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread Nick Allen
OK, well either way, I see no need to hold up Metron 0.6.1. On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:51 PM zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > I believe that 0.2.0 is impacted by the bug. > > Jon > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:50 PM Nick Allen wrote: > > > In light of this comment [1], I propose that we move forward with

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread Justin Leet
I'm inclined to do move forward with the core repo release. Having said that, there's a few test bugs and such I'd like to see addressed, either "won't fix" or preferably with PRs, before creating an RC (as noted earlier in the thread). It's probably a good opportunity to ask again if there's

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread Michael Miklavcic
+1 Nick On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:04 PM Nick Allen wrote: > OK, well either way, I see no need to hold up Metron 0.6.1. > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:51 PM zeo...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I believe that 0.2.0 is impacted by the bug. > > > > Jon > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:50 PM Nick Allen

Re: Authorization for Configuration

2018-12-03 Thread Michael Miklavcic
> @Mike Yeah, I agree. The Jira for that doesn't exist yet, pretty much pending this exact conversation winding down. Yup, understood. On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:36 AM Justin Leet wrote: > To start with, I'm thinking just the configuration, in particular anything > that touches the

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread Nick Allen
In light of this comment [1], I propose that we move forward with another Metron release and forgo the Metron Bro Plugin 0.3.0 release until we can resolve METRON-1910 [2]. There is no need to rush the fix as the current 0.2.0 release of the Bro Plugin is not impacted by the bug. We do have a

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
I believe that 0.2.0 is impacted by the bug. Jon On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:50 PM Nick Allen wrote: > In light of this comment [1], I propose that we move forward with another > Metron release and forgo the Metron Bro Plugin 0.3.0 release until we can > resolve METRON-1910 [2]. There is no need

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread Michael Miklavcic
fwiw, I have not been able to reproduce the integration test failure that I logged here - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1851. Unless anyone else has seen this, either locally or in Travis, I recommend we close it out as unable to reproduce. If it does ever show up again, the closed

Re: Metron Release 0.6.1 and/or Plugin release 0.3.0?

2018-12-03 Thread Michael Miklavcic
I have one more intermittent failure to add to the list from a timeout in the profiler integration tests. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1918 On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 2:54 PM Michael Miklavcic < michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote: > fwiw, I have not been able to reproduce the

Re: [DISCUSS] Recurrent Large Indexing Error Messages

2018-12-03 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Thanks for putting this together Nick. For point 2, I believe this was the relevant comment from that thread - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/453#issuecomment-283349461 I'm partial to a combo of option 3 (the 2nd #2 listed) or 4. I would want to: - Not bog down indexing for good