[DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

All -

I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
unless someone else would like to take it instead.

In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving usecases
and a target date for the release.

We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one or more
of the following categories:

* dependency upgrades and related fixes
* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
* the hosting of web applications
* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based login
* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
* various bug fixes and incremental improvements

It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.

If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the 0.9.0
release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable change
and file JIRAs for them asap.

I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the driving
usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from external
applications to:

1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while being
proxied through the gateway.

2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications while
being proxied through Knox.

3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can now
be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with KnoxSSO.

4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO IDP.

5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.

It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this seems
like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion for any
additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order to
make it our 1.0.

Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an end of
March release.

Thoughts?

thanks,

--larry

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>]

Should be there now.

On 4/4/16, 9:57 AM, "larry mccay" <la...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Can you cherry-pick the fix to v0.9.0?
>
>On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Larry,
>>
>> Just a FYI. The particular fix I wanted to push is in master. I know we
>> are working through some other issues so I¹ll keep working on KNOX-705
>>in
>> case I have a breakthrough before the cut (but we shouldn¹t hold up
>> anything for it).
>>
>> Sumit.
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/16, 11:37 PM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Sumit -
>> >
>> >No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go.
>> >Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we
>> >can
>> >turn the crank again.
>> >
>> >I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone
>>else to
>> >raise a flag.
>> >
>> >Thanks!
>> >
>> >--larry
>> >
>> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta
>><sumit.gupta@hortonworks.com
>> >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Larry,
>> >>
>> >> I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support
>>for
>> >> Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not
>>appear
>> >> in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest
>> >>upcoming
>> >> release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.
>> >>
>> >> Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI
>> >>work
>> >> and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.
>> >>
>> >> Sumit.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >All -
>> >> >
>> >> >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin
>>to
>> >> >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
>> >> >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
>> >> >
>> >> >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0
>>please
>> >> >speak up and we can try and accommodate.
>> >> >
>> >> >thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> >--larry
>> >> >
>> >> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> All -
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8
>>issues
>> >> >>still
>> >> >> open for 0.9.0.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a
>> >>review
>> >> >> done, etc.
>> >> >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of
>> >>them
>> >> >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are
>>critical
>> >> >>for
>> >> >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --larry
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
>> >> >><su...@hortonworks.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
>> >> >>>before a
>> >> >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes
>> >>and
>> >> >>>any
>> >> >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >I agree.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup
>> >>release
>> >> >>> where
>> >> >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the
>> >>migration
>> >> >>> via
>> >> >>> >docs or tools or whatever?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
>> >> >>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> >> >>> >wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing
>>the
>> >> >>>package
>> >> >>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is
>>always a
>> >> >>> >>difficult
>> >> >>> >> decision.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder"
>><kevin.minder@hortonworks.com
>> >
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >Larry,
>> >> >>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>> >> >>> >> >Kevin.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >>All -
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the
>>0.9.0
>> >> >>>release
>> >> >>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and
>> >>driving
>> >> >>> >> usecases
>> >> >>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall
>>into
>> >> >>>one
>> >> >>> or
>> >> >>> >> more
>> >> >>> >> >>of the following categories:
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>> >> >>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>> >> >>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
>> >> >>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form
>> >>based
>> >> >>> >>login
>> >> >>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>> >> >>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get
>> >>into
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>> >> 0.9.0
>> >> >>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
>> >> >>>sizable
>> >> >>> >> change
>> >> >>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust
>>the
>> >> >>> >>driving
>> >> >>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of
>>focus
>> >>from
>> >> >>> >> external
>> >> >>> >> >>applications to:
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari
>> >>while
>> >> >>> >>being
>> >> >>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari
>> >>applications
>> >> >>> >>while
>> >> >>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer
>> >>sample
>> >> >>>can
>> >> >>> >>now
>> >> >>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested
>>with
>> >> >>> >>KnoxSSO.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application
>>as
>> >> >>>KnoxSSO
>> >> >>> >> IDP.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
>> >> >>>improvements.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0
>>release.
>> >>If
>> >> >>>this
>> >> >>> >> seems
>> >> >>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
>> >> >>>discussion
>> >> >>> >>for
>> >> >>> >> any
>> >> >>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to
>>include in
>> >> >>>order
>> >> >>> >>to
>> >> >>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to
>> >>propose an
>> >> >>> >>end of
>> >> >>> >> >>March release.
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>Thoughts?
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>thanks,
>> >> >>> >> >>
>> >> >>> >> >>--larry
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <la...@gmail.com>]

Can you cherry-pick the fix to v0.9.0?

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Larry,
>
> Just a FYI. The particular fix I wanted to push is in master. I know we
> are working through some other issues so I¹ll keep working on KNOX-705 in
> case I have a breakthrough before the cut (but we shouldn¹t hold up
> anything for it).
>
> Sumit.
>
>
> On 4/3/16, 11:37 PM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Sumit -
> >
> >No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go.
> >Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we
> >can
> >turn the crank again.
> >
> >I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone else to
> >raise a flag.
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >--larry
> >
> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <sumit.gupta@hortonworks.com
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Larry,
> >>
> >> I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for
> >> Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear
> >> in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest
> >>upcoming
> >> release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.
> >>
> >> Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI
> >>work
> >> and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.
> >>
> >> Sumit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >All -
> >> >
> >> >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
> >> >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
> >> >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
> >> >
> >> >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
> >> >speak up and we can try and accommodate.
> >> >
> >> >thanks!
> >> >
> >> >--larry
> >> >
> >> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> All -
> >> >>
> >> >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues
> >> >>still
> >> >> open for 0.9.0.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a
> >>review
> >> >> done, etc.
> >> >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of
> >>them
> >> >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
> >> >>
> >> >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical
> >> >>for
> >> >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >> --larry
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
> >> >><su...@hortonworks.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
> >> >>>before a
> >> >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes
> >>and
> >> >>>any
> >> >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >I agree.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup
> >>release
> >> >>> where
> >> >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the
> >>migration
> >> >>> via
> >> >>> >docs or tools or whatever?
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
> >> >>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
> >> >>> >wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the
> >> >>>package
> >> >>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
> >> >>> >>difficult
> >> >>> >> decision.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <kevin.minder@hortonworks.com
> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> >Larry,
> >> >>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
> >> >>> >> >Kevin.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >>All -
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0
> >> >>>release
> >> >>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and
> >>driving
> >> >>> >> usecases
> >> >>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into
> >> >>>one
> >> >>> or
> >> >>> >> more
> >> >>> >> >>of the following categories:
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
> >> >>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
> >> >>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
> >> >>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form
> >>based
> >> >>> >>login
> >> >>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
> >> >>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get
> >>into
> >> >>>the
> >> >>> >> 0.9.0
> >> >>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
> >> >>>sizable
> >> >>> >> change
> >> >>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
> >> >>> >>driving
> >> >>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus
> >>from
> >> >>> >> external
> >> >>> >> >>applications to:
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari
> >>while
> >> >>> >>being
> >> >>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari
> >>applications
> >> >>> >>while
> >> >>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer
> >>sample
> >> >>>can
> >> >>> >>now
> >> >>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
> >> >>> >>KnoxSSO.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as
> >> >>>KnoxSSO
> >> >>> >> IDP.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
> >> >>>improvements.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release.
> >>If
> >> >>>this
> >> >>> >> seems
> >> >>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
> >> >>>discussion
> >> >>> >>for
> >> >>> >> any
> >> >>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in
> >> >>>order
> >> >>> >>to
> >> >>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to
> >>propose an
> >> >>> >>end of
> >> >>> >> >>March release.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>Thoughts?
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>thanks,
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >>--larry
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>]

Thanks Larry,

Just a FYI. The particular fix I wanted to push is in master. I know we
are working through some other issues so I¹ll keep working on KNOX-705 in
case I have a breakthrough before the cut (but we shouldn¹t hold up
anything for it).

Sumit.


On 4/3/16, 11:37 PM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

>Hi Sumit -
>
>No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go.
>Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we
>can
>turn the crank again.
>
>I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone else to
>raise a flag.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--larry
>
>On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for
>> Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear
>> in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest
>>upcoming
>> release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.
>>
>> Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI
>>work
>> and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.
>>
>> Sumit.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >All -
>> >
>> >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
>> >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
>> >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
>> >
>> >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
>> >speak up and we can try and accommodate.
>> >
>> >thanks!
>> >
>> >--larry
>> >
>> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> All -
>> >>
>> >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues
>> >>still
>> >> open for 0.9.0.
>> >>
>> >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a
>>review
>> >> done, etc.
>> >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of
>>them
>> >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
>> >>
>> >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical
>> >>for
>> >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >>
>> >> --larry
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
>> >><su...@hortonworks.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
>> >>>before a
>> >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes
>>and
>> >>>any
>> >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >I agree.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup
>>release
>> >>> where
>> >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the
>>migration
>> >>> via
>> >>> >docs or tools or whatever?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
>> >>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> >wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the
>> >>>package
>> >>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
>> >>> >>difficult
>> >>> >> decision.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >Larry,
>> >>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>> >>> >> >Kevin.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>All -
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0
>> >>>release
>> >>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and
>>driving
>> >>> >> usecases
>> >>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into
>> >>>one
>> >>> or
>> >>> >> more
>> >>> >> >>of the following categories:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>> >>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>> >>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
>> >>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form
>>based
>> >>> >>login
>> >>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>> >>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get
>>into
>> >>>the
>> >>> >> 0.9.0
>> >>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
>> >>>sizable
>> >>> >> change
>> >>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
>> >>> >>driving
>> >>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus
>>from
>> >>> >> external
>> >>> >> >>applications to:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari
>>while
>> >>> >>being
>> >>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari
>>applications
>> >>> >>while
>> >>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer
>>sample
>> >>>can
>> >>> >>now
>> >>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
>> >>> >>KnoxSSO.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as
>> >>>KnoxSSO
>> >>> >> IDP.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
>> >>>improvements.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release.
>>If
>> >>>this
>> >>> >> seems
>> >>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
>> >>>discussion
>> >>> >>for
>> >>> >> any
>> >>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in
>> >>>order
>> >>> >>to
>> >>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to
>>propose an
>> >>> >>end of
>> >>> >> >>March release.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>Thoughts?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>thanks,
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>--larry
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <la...@gmail.com>]

That isn't going to work actually.
I am going to need to put some thought into how to detect whether it needs
to be redirected in a filter that can be added by the Shiro provider.
I recall running into this earlier which is why I went with the login page
URL.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 12:25 AM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

> All -
>
> After beginning to write the instructional wiki, I've decided that the
> combination of KnoxSSO + Default IDP (form-based) needs a change as well.
>
> Currently, we would need to configure the participating applications to
> use either the URL to the knoxauth application within the knoxsso.xml
> topology or to the knoxsso/websso API endpoint. This would be based on
> whether the new default IDP was being used or not.
>
> Initially, this seemed okay to me since it was still part of KnoxSSO
> topology but...
>
> This would require all participating applications to change their
> configuration for the KnoxSSO URL if they were to migrate to a new IDP. I
> think that this should be avoided. All that participating applications
> should have to know about is the knoxsso endpoint. The specific identity
> solution integration should only be the concern of the KnoxSSO admin.
>
> I'm thinking that I will add a new service paramter to KnoxSSO service
> that will indicate that there is a colocated knoxauth application that
> should be redirected to if there is no cookie presented with the request.
> Even though the KnoxSSO service has previously relied solely on the
> federation providers to do whatever redirecting was required for their
> protocol, I am thinking that the service should be able to redirect to an
> application that is colocated in the topology for authentication purposes.
>
> I should be able to crank this out tomorrow and get a new rc by tomorrow
> night or early Tuesday.
>
> If anyone thinks that this should just be considered a known issue and
> that we shouldn't wait for it - just say so.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:37 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sumit -
>>
>> No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go.
>> Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we
>> can turn the crank again.
>>
>> I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone else
>> to raise a flag.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --larry
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <sumit.gupta@hortonworks.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Larry,
>>>
>>> I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for
>>> Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear
>>> in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest upcoming
>>> release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.
>>>
>>> Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI
>>> work
>>> and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.
>>>
>>> Sumit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >All -
>>> >
>>> >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
>>> >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
>>> >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
>>> >
>>> >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
>>> >speak up and we can try and accommodate.
>>> >
>>> >thanks!
>>> >
>>> >--larry
>>> >
>>> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> All -
>>> >>
>>> >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues
>>> >>still
>>> >> open for 0.9.0.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review
>>> >> done, etc.
>>> >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of
>>> them
>>> >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
>>> >>
>>> >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical
>>> >>for
>>> >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
>>> >>
>>> >> thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> --larry
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
>>> >><su...@hortonworks.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
>>> >>>before a
>>> >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and
>>> >>>any
>>> >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> >I agree.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release
>>> >>> where
>>> >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the
>>> migration
>>> >>> via
>>> >>> >docs or tools or whatever?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
>>> >>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>>> >>> >wrote:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the
>>> >>>package
>>> >>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
>>> >>> >>difficult
>>> >>> >> decision.
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> >Larry,
>>> >>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>>> >>> >> >Kevin.
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>> >> >
>>> >>> >> >>All -
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0
>>> >>>release
>>> >>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and
>>> driving
>>> >>> >> usecases
>>> >>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into
>>> >>>one
>>> >>> or
>>> >>> >> more
>>> >>> >> >>of the following categories:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>>> >>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>>> >>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
>>> >>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form
>>> based
>>> >>> >>login
>>> >>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>>> >>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into
>>> >>>the
>>> >>> >> 0.9.0
>>> >>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
>>> >>>sizable
>>> >>> >> change
>>> >>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
>>> >>> >>driving
>>> >>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus
>>> from
>>> >>> >> external
>>> >>> >> >>applications to:
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari
>>> while
>>> >>> >>being
>>> >>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari
>>> applications
>>> >>> >>while
>>> >>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer
>>> sample
>>> >>>can
>>> >>> >>now
>>> >>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
>>> >>> >>KnoxSSO.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as
>>> >>>KnoxSSO
>>> >>> >> IDP.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
>>> >>>improvements.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If
>>> >>>this
>>> >>> >> seems
>>> >>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
>>> >>>discussion
>>> >>> >>for
>>> >>> >> any
>>> >>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in
>>> >>>order
>>> >>> >>to
>>> >>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose
>>> an
>>> >>> >>end of
>>> >>> >> >>March release.
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>Thoughts?
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>thanks,
>>> >>> >> >>
>>> >>> >> >>--larry
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

All -

After beginning to write the instructional wiki, I've decided that the
combination of KnoxSSO + Default IDP (form-based) needs a change as well.

Currently, we would need to configure the participating applications to use
either the URL to the knoxauth application within the knoxsso.xml topology
or to the knoxsso/websso API endpoint. This would be based on whether the
new default IDP was being used or not.

Initially, this seemed okay to me since it was still part of KnoxSSO
topology but...

This would require all participating applications to change their
configuration for the KnoxSSO URL if they were to migrate to a new IDP. I
think that this should be avoided. All that participating applications
should have to know about is the knoxsso endpoint. The specific identity
solution integration should only be the concern of the KnoxSSO admin.

I'm thinking that I will add a new service paramter to KnoxSSO service that
will indicate that there is a colocated knoxauth application that should be
redirected to if there is no cookie presented with the request. Even though
the KnoxSSO service has previously relied solely on the federation
providers to do whatever redirecting was required for their protocol, I am
thinking that the service should be able to redirect to an application that
is colocated in the topology for authentication purposes.

I should be able to crank this out tomorrow and get a new rc by tomorrow
night or early Tuesday.

If anyone thinks that this should just be considered a known issue and that
we shouldn't wait for it - just say so.

thanks,

--larry

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 11:37 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Sumit -
>
> No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go.
> Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we
> can turn the crank again.
>
> I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone else to
> raise a flag.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --larry
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for
>> Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear
>> in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest upcoming
>> release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.
>>
>> Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI work
>> and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.
>>
>> Sumit.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >All -
>> >
>> >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
>> >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
>> >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
>> >
>> >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
>> >speak up and we can try and accommodate.
>> >
>> >thanks!
>> >
>> >--larry
>> >
>> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> All -
>> >>
>> >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues
>> >>still
>> >> open for 0.9.0.
>> >>
>> >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review
>> >> done, etc.
>> >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of them
>> >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
>> >>
>> >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical
>> >>for
>> >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
>> >>
>> >> thanks,
>> >>
>> >> --larry
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
>> >><su...@hortonworks.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
>> >>>before a
>> >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and
>> >>>any
>> >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >I agree.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release
>> >>> where
>> >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the
>> migration
>> >>> via
>> >>> >docs or tools or whatever?
>> >>> >
>> >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
>> >>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> >wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the
>> >>>package
>> >>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
>> >>> >>difficult
>> >>> >> decision.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >Larry,
>> >>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>> >>> >> >Kevin.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >>All -
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0
>> >>>release
>> >>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and
>> driving
>> >>> >> usecases
>> >>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into
>> >>>one
>> >>> or
>> >>> >> more
>> >>> >> >>of the following categories:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>> >>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>> >>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
>> >>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based
>> >>> >>login
>> >>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>> >>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into
>> >>>the
>> >>> >> 0.9.0
>> >>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
>> >>>sizable
>> >>> >> change
>> >>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
>> >>> >>driving
>> >>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus
>> from
>> >>> >> external
>> >>> >> >>applications to:
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while
>> >>> >>being
>> >>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications
>> >>> >>while
>> >>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample
>> >>>can
>> >>> >>now
>> >>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
>> >>> >>KnoxSSO.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as
>> >>>KnoxSSO
>> >>> >> IDP.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
>> >>>improvements.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If
>> >>>this
>> >>> >> seems
>> >>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
>> >>>discussion
>> >>> >>for
>> >>> >> any
>> >>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in
>> >>>order
>> >>> >>to
>> >>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose
>> an
>> >>> >>end of
>> >>> >> >>March release.
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>Thoughts?
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>thanks,
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >>--larry
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

Hi Sumit -

No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go.
Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we can
turn the crank again.

I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone else to
raise a flag.

Thanks!

--larry

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for
> Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear
> in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest upcoming
> release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.
>
> Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI work
> and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.
>
> Sumit.
>
>
>
> On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >All -
> >
> >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
> >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
> >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
> >
> >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
> >speak up and we can try and accommodate.
> >
> >thanks!
> >
> >--larry
> >
> >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> All -
> >>
> >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues
> >>still
> >> open for 0.9.0.
> >>
> >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review
> >> done, etc.
> >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of them
> >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
> >>
> >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical
> >>for
> >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >>
> >> --larry
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
> >><su...@hortonworks.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
> >>>before a
> >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and
> >>>any
> >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >I agree.
> >>> >
> >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release
> >>> where
> >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration
> >>> via
> >>> >docs or tools or whatever?
> >>> >
> >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
> >>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> >wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the
> >>>package
> >>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
> >>> >>difficult
> >>> >> decision.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >Larry,
> >>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
> >>> >> >Kevin.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >>All -
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0
> >>>release
> >>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving
> >>> >> usecases
> >>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into
> >>>one
> >>> or
> >>> >> more
> >>> >> >>of the following categories:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
> >>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
> >>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
> >>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based
> >>> >>login
> >>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
> >>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into
> >>>the
> >>> >> 0.9.0
> >>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
> >>>sizable
> >>> >> change
> >>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
> >>> >>driving
> >>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from
> >>> >> external
> >>> >> >>applications to:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while
> >>> >>being
> >>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications
> >>> >>while
> >>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample
> >>>can
> >>> >>now
> >>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
> >>> >>KnoxSSO.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as
> >>>KnoxSSO
> >>> >> IDP.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
> >>>improvements.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If
> >>>this
> >>> >> seems
> >>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
> >>>discussion
> >>> >>for
> >>> >> any
> >>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in
> >>>order
> >>> >>to
> >>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an
> >>> >>end of
> >>> >> >>March release.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>Thoughts?
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>thanks,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>--larry
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>]

Hi Larry,

I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for
Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear
in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest upcoming
release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in.

Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI work
and we will need to make it a known issue for the release.

Sumit.



On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

>All -
>
>I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
>clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
>Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.
>
>If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
>speak up and we can try and accommodate.
>
>thanks!
>
>--larry
>
>On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> All -
>>
>> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues
>>still
>> open for 0.9.0.
>>
>> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review
>> done, etc.
>> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of them
>> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
>>
>> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical
>>for
>> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> --larry
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta
>><su...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9
>>>before a
>>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and
>>>any
>>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I agree.
>>> >
>>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release
>>> where
>>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration
>>> via
>>> >docs or tools or whatever?
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
>>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the
>>>package
>>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
>>> >>difficult
>>> >> decision.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Larry,
>>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>>> >> >Kevin.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>All -
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0
>>>release
>>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving
>>> >> usecases
>>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into
>>>one
>>> or
>>> >> more
>>> >> >>of the following categories:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
>>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based
>>> >>login
>>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into
>>>the
>>> >> 0.9.0
>>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a
>>>sizable
>>> >> change
>>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
>>> >>driving
>>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from
>>> >> external
>>> >> >>applications to:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while
>>> >>being
>>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications
>>> >>while
>>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample
>>>can
>>> >>now
>>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
>>> >>KnoxSSO.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as
>>>KnoxSSO
>>> >> IDP.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and
>>>improvements.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If
>>>this
>>> >> seems
>>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up
>>>discussion
>>> >>for
>>> >> any
>>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in
>>>order
>>> >>to
>>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an
>>> >>end of
>>> >> >>March release.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Thoughts?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>thanks,
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>--larry
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

All -

I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to
clean up the 0.9.0 issue list.
Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday.

If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please
speak up and we can try and accommodate.

thanks!

--larry

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

> All -
>
> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues still
> open for 0.9.0.
>
> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review
> done, etc.
> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of them
> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.
>
> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical for
> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.
>
> thanks,
>
> --larry
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9 before a
>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and any
>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >I agree.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release
>> where
>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration
>> via
>> >docs or tools or whatever?
>> >
>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
>> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the package
>> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
>> >>difficult
>> >> decision.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Larry,
>> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>> >> >Kevin.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>All -
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
>> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving
>> >> usecases
>> >> >>and a target date for the release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one
>> or
>> >> more
>> >> >>of the following categories:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
>> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based
>> >>login
>> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the
>> >> 0.9.0
>> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable
>> >> change
>> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
>> >>driving
>> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from
>> >> external
>> >> >>applications to:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while
>> >>being
>> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications
>> >>while
>> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can
>> >>now
>> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
>> >>KnoxSSO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO
>> >> IDP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this
>> >> seems
>> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion
>> >>for
>> >> any
>> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order
>> >>to
>> >> >>make it our 1.0.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an
>> >>end of
>> >> >>March release.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Thoughts?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>thanks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--larry
>> >>
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

All -

We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues still
open for 0.9.0.

I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review
done, etc.
Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of them
need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release.

If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical for
0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible.

thanks,

--larry

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9 before a
> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and any
> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.
>
>
>
> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >I agree.
> >
> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release where
> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration via
> >docs or tools or whatever?
> >
> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
> ><ke...@hortonworks.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the package
> >> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
> >>difficult
> >> decision.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Larry,
> >> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
> >> >Kevin.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>All -
> >> >>
> >> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
> >> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
> >> >>
> >> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving
> >> usecases
> >> >>and a target date for the release.
> >> >>
> >> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one or
> >> more
> >> >>of the following categories:
> >> >>
> >> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
> >> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
> >> >>* the hosting of web applications
> >> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based
> >>login
> >> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
> >> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
> >> >>
> >> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
> >> >>
> >> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the
> >> 0.9.0
> >> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable
> >> change
> >> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
> >> >>
> >> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
> >>driving
> >> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from
> >> external
> >> >>applications to:
> >> >>
> >> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while
> >>being
> >> >>proxied through the gateway.
> >> >>
> >> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications
> >>while
> >> >>being proxied through Knox.
> >> >>
> >> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can
> >>now
> >> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
> >>KnoxSSO.
> >> >>
> >> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO
> >> IDP.
> >> >>
> >> >>5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.
> >> >>
> >> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this
> >> seems
> >> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion
> >>for
> >> any
> >> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order
> >>to
> >> >>make it our 1.0.
> >> >>
> >> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an
> >>end of
> >> >>March release.
> >> >>
> >> >>Thoughts?
> >> >>
> >> >>thanks,
> >> >>
> >> >>--larry
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[Sumit Gupta <su...@hortonworks.com>]

+1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9 before a
1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and any
other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion.



On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

>I agree.
>
>Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release where
>we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration via
>docs or tools or whatever?
>
>On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder
><ke...@hortonworks.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the package
>> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a
>>difficult
>> decision.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Larry,
>> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>> >Kevin.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>All -
>> >>
>> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
>> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>> >>
>> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving
>> usecases
>> >>and a target date for the release.
>> >>
>> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one or
>> more
>> >>of the following categories:
>> >>
>> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>> >>* the hosting of web applications
>> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based
>>login
>> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>> >>
>> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>> >>
>> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the
>> 0.9.0
>> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable
>> change
>> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>> >>
>> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the
>>driving
>> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from
>> external
>> >>applications to:
>> >>
>> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while
>>being
>> >>proxied through the gateway.
>> >>
>> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications
>>while
>> >>being proxied through Knox.
>> >>
>> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can
>>now
>> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with
>>KnoxSSO.
>> >>
>> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO
>> IDP.
>> >>
>> >>5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.
>> >>
>> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this
>> seems
>> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion
>>for
>> any
>> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order
>>to
>> >>make it our 1.0.
>> >>
>> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an
>>end of
>> >>March release.
>> >>
>> >>Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >>thanks,
>> >>
>> >>--larry
>>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[larry mccay <lm...@apache.org>]

I agree.

Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release where
we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration via
docs or tools or whatever?

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder <ke...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the package
> names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a difficult
> decision.
>
>
>
>
> On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> >Larry,
> >I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
> >Kevin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>All -
> >>
> >>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
> >>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
> >>
> >>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving
> usecases
> >>and a target date for the release.
> >>
> >>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one or
> more
> >>of the following categories:
> >>
> >>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
> >>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
> >>* the hosting of web applications
> >>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based login
> >>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
> >>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
> >>
> >>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
> >>
> >>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the
> 0.9.0
> >>release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable
> change
> >>and file JIRAs for them asap.
> >>
> >>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the driving
> >>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from
> external
> >>applications to:
> >>
> >>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while being
> >>proxied through the gateway.
> >>
> >>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications while
> >>being proxied through Knox.
> >>
> >>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can now
> >>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with KnoxSSO.
> >>
> >>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO
> IDP.
> >>
> >>5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.
> >>
> >>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this
> seems
> >>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion for
> any
> >>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order to
> >>make it our 1.0.
> >>
> >>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an end of
> >>March release.
> >>
> >>Thoughts?
> >>
> >>thanks,
> >>
> >>--larry
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[Kevin Minder <ke...@hortonworks.com>]

I'm on the fence about an 0.9 vs a 1.0.  A 1.0 means fixing the package names to me mostly.  Breaking backwards compatibility is always a difficult decision.




On 3/8/16, 9:55 AM, "Kevin Minder" <ke...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

>Larry,
>I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
>Kevin.
>
>
>
>
>On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>All -
>>
>>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
>>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>>
>>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving usecases
>>and a target date for the release.
>>
>>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one or more
>>of the following categories:
>>
>>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>>* the hosting of web applications
>>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based login
>>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>>
>>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>>
>>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the 0.9.0
>>release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable change
>>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>>
>>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the driving
>>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from external
>>applications to:
>>
>>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while being
>>proxied through the gateway.
>>
>>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications while
>>being proxied through Knox.
>>
>>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can now
>>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with KnoxSSO.
>>
>>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO IDP.
>>
>>5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.
>>
>>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this seems
>>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion for any
>>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order to
>>make it our 1.0.
>>
>>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an end of
>>March release.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>>--larry

Re: [DISCUSS] Planning for 0.9.0 Release

[Kevin Minder <ke...@hortonworks.com>]

Larry,
I'm +1 on the content, timing and you being RM.
Kevin.




On 3/8/16, 9:22 AM, "larry mccay" <lm...@apache.org> wrote:

>All -
>
>I'd like to volunteer to be the release manager for the 0.9.0 release
>unless someone else would like to take it instead.
>
>In addition, I think that we need to scope the release and driving usecases
>and a target date for the release.
>
>We currently have ~25 JIRAs slated for 0.9.0 and most fall into one or more
>of the following categories:
>
>* dependency upgrades and related fixes
>* proxying of UIs for Ambari and Ranger and related issues
>* the hosting of web applications
>* the addition of an application for a default KnoxSSO form based login
>* PAM authentication provider - MISSING DOCs and TESTs
>* various bug fixes and incremental improvements
>
>It seems that around half of these are already set to fixed.
>
>If there are additional issues that folks would like to get into the 0.9.0
>release then we should discuss anything that would require a sizable change
>and file JIRAs for them asap.
>
>I believe that from the above categories that we can adjust the driving
>usecases from the 0.8.0 release to reflect the shift of focus from external
>applications to:
>
>1. SSO participation by applications like Ranger and Ambari while being
>proxied through the gateway.
>
>2. Authentication natively done by Ranger and Ambari applications while
>being proxied through Knox.
>
>3. the usecase of a custom application like the Knoxplorer sample can now
>be hosted by Knox and this needs to be covered and tested with KnoxSSO.
>
>4. Default Knox authentication with form based application as KnoxSSO IDP.
>
>5. any additional API support and various features and improvements.
>
>It seems to me that we could start considering a 1.0 release. If this seems
>like a reasonable time to do that then we should open up discussion for any
>additional improvements or changes that we'd want to include in order to
>make it our 1.0.
>
>Given the above scope and driving usecases, I'd like to propose an end of
>March release.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>thanks,
>
>--larry