I agree, we shouldn't provide documentation for ES upgrade as ES has that covered. I also agree that we should provide doc for ES mpack upgrade.
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:47 PM, 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 > >
