Kibana-6.0.0-alpha1


(Pieter Agenbag) #1

Hi , I'm sorry if this is a stupid question - but I did not see a explanation anywhere obvious.

I've been "absent" from elasticsearch/kibana for a while , while working on some other projects.
I've been waiting for the 5.0 release before porting my application from ES1.7 & Kibana 4.1

But today when I checked in - I see Kibana 6.0 alpha ?
What happened to the 5.0 release ?
The version compatibility chart is As confusing. Kibana 6.1.2, Elastic 6..x , 7.x ?

What year is this - have I been asleep ?


(Mark Walkom) #2

Where is this compatibility chart you are looking at?


(Pieter Agenbag) #3

On git (https://github.com/elastic/kibana) ... have I stumbled into the twilight zone ?


(Tim Sullivan) #4

The master branch version has been bumped to 6.0 very recently. If you want the source of the 5.0 which is the next stable version, it is here: https://github.com/elastic/kibana/tree/5.0


(Court Ewing) #5

The numbers in that graph are for demonstration purposes only. The next major version is 5.0.


(CJ Cenizal) #6

Hi Pieter, I'm trying to figure out how to make this chart less confusing. You're not the first to be confused by it!

Please take a look at the attached image and let me know if this makes things clearer.

Thanks,
CJ


(Pieter Agenbag) #7

Hi - Thanx all for clearing things up.

CJ, I perfectly understand meaning of the compatibility chart - I think it does a good job in that regard. I was just confused by the actual version numbers used in it.
Would it not make sense to dynamically construct the table , base on the current version (of the branch ) ?
At least the kibana version. I do understand the need for fictional ES versions to illustrate certain scenarios.

I think most of all I was just confused that there is already a "6.0.0 alpha1" when 5.0 is not even out of alpha yet.


(CJ Cenizal) #8

Ah I see. Yeah it is kinda weird to be working on 6 already, at the same time as 5. :slight_smile:

Thanks for your suggestion about dynamically constructing the table. I like that idea, though that might take a little work to implement!

CJ


(system) #9