If we support indexing through extensions down the road we can add in support for older versions or other back ends as well.
On October 4, 2017 at 15:47:35, James Sirota ([email protected]) wrote: I am in favor of moving to 5.x and dropping support for 2.x. As Justin mentioned, Elastic have very good docs around cluster migrations and the procedure itself to upgrade from 2.x to 5.x is very simple. https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/current/restart-upgrade.html I don't agree that we should provide documentation for ES upgrade. I think pointing to elastic docs should be good enough. I do agree that we should provide documentation for the ES mpack upgrade, which we will. With us supporting 5.x I see little reason to be backwards compatible to 2.x 04.10.2017, 11:59, "Farrukh Naveed Anjum" <[email protected]>: Its better to move to Elastic Search 5 or 6. As Elasticsearch 2.x is really pretty old. On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Simon Elliston Ball < [email protected]> wrote: A number of people are currently working on upgrading the ES support in Metron to 5.x (including the clients, and the mpack managed install). Would anyone have any objections to dropping formal support for 2.x as a result of this work? In theory the clients should be backward compatible against older data stores, so metron could be upgraded without needing an elastic upgrade. In practice, we would need to do pretty extensive testing and I wouldn’t want us to have to code around long term support on older clients if no-one in the community cares enough about the older ES. Do we think there is a case to be made for maintaining long term support for older clients? Simon -- With Regards Farrukh Naveed Anjum ------------------- Thank you, James Sirota PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating) jsirota AT apache DOT org
