Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Backport/fix when file is gone #22

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: core-api-v1
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Backport/fix when file is gone #22

wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

purbon
Copy link

@purbon purbon commented Nov 19, 2015

Backport #21, notice a few things need to do to make the backport compatible.

  • use s.add_runtime_dependency "logstash-core", '~> 1.4' as the former expression was fetching 2.0.0 pre releases that are basically imcompatible with this branch of code.
  • force the concurrent-ruby version to 0.9.1, this is needed as the fix was not backported to 1.5.

for the rest the backport is good and working. please check #21 and #20 if you need more clarifications to what this changes are doing.

Fixes #20 for 1.x plugins.

Pere Urbon-Bayes added 3 commits November 19, 2015 10:29
…th this change the deleted file can either be recreated or the events appended to the errorlog

Conflicts:
	lib/logstash/outputs/file.rb
@colinsurprenant
Copy link
Contributor

@purbon as discussed in elastic/logstash#4236 and elastic/logstash#4188 having these versions in the gemspec is not the correct solution. for now I suggest you just put these in the main Gemfile of the plugin and not touch the gemspec until we figure the right strategy.

Pere Urbon-Bayes added 2 commits November 25, 2015 10:18
…nforced the use of concurrent-ruby 0.9.1"

This reverts commit 527e3ef.
… Gemfile as requested during review until the right expressions are agreed to be placed in the gemspec file
@purbon
Copy link
Author

purbon commented Nov 25, 2015

@colinsurprenant @jordansissel or @ph can one of you please validate this and give me your opinion. thanks a lot.

@colinsurprenant
Copy link
Contributor

@purbon I don't think we need to push a new Gemfile version? Why not just put the < 1.999.0 in the gemspec?

@purbon
Copy link
Author

purbon commented Nov 30, 2015

@colinsurprenant sorry, still not agreed that 1.999.0 is the prefered way to go vs using 2.0.0.a, at less that I understand.

@purbon
Copy link
Author

purbon commented Nov 30, 2015

@colinsurprenant I pushed the gemfile because I understood is necessary to let this plugin work for now, right? I do really would like to unblock the backport and agree on a way to go.

@colinsurprenant
Copy link
Contributor

@purbon the Gemfile is only necessary for local development work.

updated elastic/logstash#4236 to try and explain my point of view. think about it.

@purbon
Copy link
Author

purbon commented Dec 2, 2015

@colinsurprenant I made the changes as discussed. I keep the Gemfile with the concurrent ruby fix as is required for dev env to not be broken. let me know what do you think?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants