simitt
simitt
Reading through the test cases, can you clarify if this is true: customers on `8.14.3` with custom ILM policies, who upgrade to `8.15.1` will not have to do any manual...
>>Upgrade 8.14.x to 8.15.0 with default ILM policy and then upgrade to 8.15.1 >This, as expected, creates unmanaged indices. We would need to suggest workaround for this in our changelog/release-notes....
@mgreau @cachedout please confirm in which stack version we are supposed to actually drop ubuntu support and switch the default.
We have everything we need, thank you.
>Are we planning to enable this? Yes please! It seems that this PR fell through the cracks while waiting for the blocking PR to be merged. @ericywl do you have...
@mlunadia for awareness - we would need to collaborate with the UI team for bringing feedback to the customers. Happy to provide more context where needed, but would appreciate your...
@mlunadia I don't think we have a mapped out solution, hence also not 100% clear which UI team. I am not aware that the Fleet managed apm setup offered a...
@akhileshpok for awareness and input on priority. >Apart from highlighting mapping conflicts, the key point is APM plugin in ES is unable to "finalize" its initialization, making probably data broken,...
@marclop are you actively working on this?
> 'log.level' field will not be searchable in the _index_template/logs-apm.error because one of the component templates responsible for explicit field mappings _component_template/logs-apm.error@package has field named 'error.log.level' (nested under error) but...