You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@nifi.apache.org by Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> on 2016/09/27 21:28:01 UTC
[DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
All,
I would like to start the discussion of making the next official release of
the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since it
seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0 was
released.
The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been completed
in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are resolved.
Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we need to
decide what to do with.
Patch Available
NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
Open against 0.7.0
NIFI-2383 ListFiles
NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this ticket
is for 0.x)
NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x branch,
should we try to work these?
NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
-- Mike
[1] -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%2C%200.8.0%29
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
Okay, then, let's proceed with Joe S. as RM for 0.7.1.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As long as someone has commit privileges they can certainly step up to
> take on release management. The only special bit in a release beyond
> commit privileges is needing sufficient binding votes. Thanks Joe for
> offering to take that on.
>
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Aldrin Piri <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is also my belief that we have not had anyone but PMC members perform
> > the release process. Certainly no objections here and, as mentioned in
> the
> > link, still requires the same PMC validation.
> >
> > I've seen this occur in some other ASF projects as well and certainly is
> > beneficial to our community to have more people with the experience.
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 20:18 Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone object to Joe Skora being release manager for 0.7.1? Based
> on
> >> this [1] I don't see any reason he shouldn't be able to. I've offered
> out
> >> of band to assist.
> >>
> >> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#release_manager
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Well I'm certainly willing to not do it! That being said, I don't know
> >> > that we've had a non-PMC member do the job of RM'ing (I tried to find
> >> logs
> >> > of it all, and failed).
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Joe Skora <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in
> >> the
> >> >> future.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
> >> >> > 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear
> >> otherwise, I
> >> >> > presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a
> >> good
> >> >> 24
> >> >> > hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling
> together an
> >> >> RC.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <
> moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x
> >> >> branches. +1
> >> >> > > on a release from the 0.x branch now.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > -- Mike
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <
> moser.mw@gmail.com
> >> >
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for
> this
> >> to
> >> >> be
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the
> >> >> current
> >> >> > > state
> >> >> > > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > -- Mike
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets
> >> NIFI-2429,
> >> >> > > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under
> discussion.
> >> >> > Oleg,
> >> >> > > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit
> in
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > next
> >> >> > > >> 0.x release?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Tony
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <
> >> moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I
> am
> >> >> going
> >> >> > > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against
> 0.8.0
> >> I
> >> >> am
> >> >> > > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will
> not
> >> >> > change.
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > -- Mike
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <
> joe.witt@gmail.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > Team,
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one:
> https://issues.apache.org/
> >> >> > > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > Thanks
> >> >> > > >> > > Joe
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <
> >> >> > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we
> need
> >> >> > someone
> >> >> > > >> to
> >> >> > > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429
> PersistentProvenanceRepository.
> >> >> > Once
> >> >> > > >> > those
> >> >> > > >> > > are
> >> >> > > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> >> >> > > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > > > -- Mike
> >> >> > > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <
> >> trkurc@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How
> >> are
> >> >> we
> >> >> > > >> feeling
> >> >> > > >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <
> >> >> joe.witt@gmail.com
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed
> >> >> > already.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > Joe
> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <
> >> >> > brd@jhu.edu
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting
> 0.7.1. I
> >> >> think
> >> >> > > >> Mike's
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > question
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those
> >> tickets
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > > >> worth
> >> >> > > >> > > >> fixing
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care
> >> about:
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see,
> even
> >> >> if
> >> >> > its
> >> >> > > >> in
> >> >> > > >> > > 0.7.2
> >> >> > > >> > > >> or
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are
> currently
> >> >> > > committed
> >> >> > > >> (or
> >> >> > > >> > > have
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as
> >> soon
> >> >> as
> >> >> > > >> > > possible. So
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd
> rather
> >> >> > address
> >> >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > immediate
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > Brandon
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <
> >> >> > trkurc@gmail.com
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of
> expected
> >> we
> >> >> > may
> >> >> > > do
> >> >> > > >> > more
> >> >> > > >> > > >> 0.x
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we
> can
> >> >> fix,
> >> >> > > the
> >> >> > > >> > > merrier,
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > and
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman
> >> for
> >> >> a
> >> >> > bug
> >> >> > > >> fix
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > release of
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be
> >> >> great
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > > >> have
> >> >> > > >> > > >> fixed,
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > I
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some
> fixes
> >> >> and
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > > >> > couple
> >> >> > > >> > > >> known
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection",
> especially
> >> >> as a
> >> >> > > lot
> >> >> > > >> of
> >> >> > > >> > > our
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > effort
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be
> wasted
> >> if
> >> >> > > patches
> >> >> > > >> > were
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> >> >> > > >> > interest/demand
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > signal
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
> >> >> > > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > All,
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making
> the
> >> >> next
> >> >> > > >> > official
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > release
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> of
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be
> >> >> numbered
> >> >> > > >> 0.7.1
> >> >> > > >> > > since
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > it
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the
> 0.x
> >> >> > branch
> >> >> > > >> since
> >> >> > > >> > > >> 0.7.0
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > was
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > released.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets
> >> that
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > >> been
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > completed
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this
> >> list
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > > >> are
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > resolved.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet
> >> >> complete
> >> >> > > >> that
> >> >> > > >> > we
> >> >> > > >> > > >> need
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > to
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed
> in
> >> >> > master
> >> >> > > >> but
> >> >> > > >> > > this
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > ticket
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically
> >> >> targeted
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > > >> the
> >> >> > > >> > 0.x
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > branch,
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%
> >> >> > 20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> >> >> > > >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> > >
> >> >> > > >> >
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>.
As long as someone has commit privileges they can certainly step up to
take on release management. The only special bit in a release beyond
commit privileges is needing sufficient binding votes. Thanks Joe for
offering to take that on.
Joe
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Aldrin Piri <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is also my belief that we have not had anyone but PMC members perform
> the release process. Certainly no objections here and, as mentioned in the
> link, still requires the same PMC validation.
>
> I've seen this occur in some other ASF projects as well and certainly is
> beneficial to our community to have more people with the experience.
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 20:18 Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone object to Joe Skora being release manager for 0.7.1? Based on
>> this [1] I don't see any reason he shouldn't be able to. I've offered out
>> of band to assist.
>>
>> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#release_manager
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Well I'm certainly willing to not do it! That being said, I don't know
>> > that we've had a non-PMC member do the job of RM'ing (I tried to find
>> logs
>> > of it all, and failed).
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Joe Skora <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in
>> the
>> >> future.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
>> >> > 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear
>> otherwise, I
>> >> > presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a
>> good
>> >> 24
>> >> > hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an
>> >> RC.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x
>> >> branches. +1
>> >> > > on a release from the 0.x branch now.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -- Mike
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <moser.mw@gmail.com
>> >
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> > in
>> >> > > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the
>> >> current
>> >> > > state
>> >> > > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > -- Mike
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets
>> NIFI-2429,
>> >> > > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion.
>> >> > Oleg,
>> >> > > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in
>> >> the
>> >> > > next
>> >> > > >> 0.x release?
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Tony
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <
>> moser.mw@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am
>> >> going
>> >> > > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0
>> I
>> >> am
>> >> > > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not
>> >> > change.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > -- Mike
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > Team,
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
>> >> > > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > Thanks
>> >> > > >> > > Joe
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <
>> >> > moser.mw@gmail.com>
>> >> > > >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need
>> >> > someone
>> >> > > >> to
>> >> > > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository.
>> >> > Once
>> >> > > >> > those
>> >> > > >> > > are
>> >> > > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
>> >> > > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > > > -- Mike
>> >> > > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <
>> trkurc@gmail.com>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How
>> are
>> >> we
>> >> > > >> feeling
>> >> > > >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
>> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <
>> >> joe.witt@gmail.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > >> > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed
>> >> > already.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
>> >> > > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks
>> >> > > >> > > >> > Joe
>> >> > > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <
>> >> > brd@jhu.edu
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I
>> >> think
>> >> > > >> Mike's
>> >> > > >> > > >> > question
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those
>> tickets
>> >> > were
>> >> > > >> worth
>> >> > > >> > > >> fixing
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care
>> about:
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even
>> >> if
>> >> > its
>> >> > > >> in
>> >> > > >> > > 0.7.2
>> >> > > >> > > >> or
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently
>> >> > > committed
>> >> > > >> (or
>> >> > > >> > > have
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as
>> soon
>> >> as
>> >> > > >> > > possible. So
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather
>> >> > address
>> >> > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > > >> > immediate
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > Brandon
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <
>> >> > trkurc@gmail.com
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected
>> we
>> >> > may
>> >> > > do
>> >> > > >> > more
>> >> > > >> > > >> 0.x
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can
>> >> fix,
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > >> > > merrier,
>> >> > > >> > > >> > and
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman
>> for
>> >> a
>> >> > bug
>> >> > > >> fix
>> >> > > >> > > >> > release of
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be
>> >> great
>> >> > to
>> >> > > >> have
>> >> > > >> > > >> fixed,
>> >> > > >> > > >> > I
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes
>> >> and
>> >> > a
>> >> > > >> > couple
>> >> > > >> > > >> known
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially
>> >> as a
>> >> > > lot
>> >> > > >> of
>> >> > > >> > > our
>> >> > > >> > > >> > effort
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted
>> if
>> >> > > patches
>> >> > > >> > were
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
>> >> > > >> > interest/demand
>> >> > > >> > > >> > signal
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
>> >> > > moser.mw@gmail.com>
>> >> > > >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > All,
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the
>> >> next
>> >> > > >> > official
>> >> > > >> > > >> > release
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> of
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be
>> >> numbered
>> >> > > >> 0.7.1
>> >> > > >> > > since
>> >> > > >> > > >> > it
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x
>> >> > branch
>> >> > > >> since
>> >> > > >> > > >> 0.7.0
>> >> > > >> > > >> > was
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > released.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets
>> that
>> >> > have
>> >> > > >> been
>> >> > > >> > > >> > completed
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this
>> list
>> >> > that
>> >> > > >> are
>> >> > > >> > > >> > resolved.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet
>> >> complete
>> >> > > >> that
>> >> > > >> > we
>> >> > > >> > > >> need
>> >> > > >> > > >> > to
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in
>> >> > master
>> >> > > >> but
>> >> > > >> > > this
>> >> > > >> > > >> > ticket
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically
>> >> targeted
>> >> > to
>> >> > > >> the
>> >> > > >> > 0.x
>> >> > > >> > > >> > branch,
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%
>> >> > 20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
>> >> > > >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> >> > > >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> > >
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Aldrin Piri <al...@gmail.com>.
It is also my belief that we have not had anyone but PMC members perform
the release process. Certainly no objections here and, as mentioned in the
link, still requires the same PMC validation.
I've seen this occur in some other ASF projects as well and certainly is
beneficial to our community to have more people with the experience.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 20:18 Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone object to Joe Skora being release manager for 0.7.1? Based on
> this [1] I don't see any reason he shouldn't be able to. I've offered out
> of band to assist.
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#release_manager
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well I'm certainly willing to not do it! That being said, I don't know
> > that we've had a non-PMC member do the job of RM'ing (I tried to find
> logs
> > of it all, and failed).
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Joe Skora <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in
> the
> >> future.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
> >> > 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
> >> >
> >> > I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear
> otherwise, I
> >> > presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a
> good
> >> 24
> >> > hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an
> >> RC.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x
> >> branches. +1
> >> > > on a release from the 0.x branch now.
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Mike
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <moser.mw@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this
> to
> >> be
> >> > in
> >> > > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the
> >> current
> >> > > state
> >> > > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -- Mike
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets
> NIFI-2429,
> >> > > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion.
> >> > Oleg,
> >> > > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in
> >> the
> >> > > next
> >> > > >> 0.x release?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Tony
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <
> moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am
> >> going
> >> > > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0
> I
> >> am
> >> > > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not
> >> > change.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > -- Mike
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > Team,
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> > > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > Thanks
> >> > > >> > > Joe
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <
> >> > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need
> >> > someone
> >> > > >> to
> >> > > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository.
> >> > Once
> >> > > >> > those
> >> > > >> > > are
> >> > > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > -- Mike
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <
> trkurc@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How
> are
> >> we
> >> > > >> feeling
> >> > > >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <
> >> joe.witt@gmail.com
> >> > >
> >> > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed
> >> > already.
> >> > > >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks
> >> > > >> > > >> > Joe
> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <
> >> > brd@jhu.edu
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I
> >> think
> >> > > >> Mike's
> >> > > >> > > >> > question
> >> > > >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those
> tickets
> >> > were
> >> > > >> worth
> >> > > >> > > >> fixing
> >> > > >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care
> about:
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even
> >> if
> >> > its
> >> > > >> in
> >> > > >> > > 0.7.2
> >> > > >> > > >> or
> >> > > >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> >> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently
> >> > > committed
> >> > > >> (or
> >> > > >> > > have
> >> > > >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as
> soon
> >> as
> >> > > >> > > possible. So
> >> > > >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather
> >> > address
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > > >> > immediate
> >> > > >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > Brandon
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <
> >> > trkurc@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected
> we
> >> > may
> >> > > do
> >> > > >> > more
> >> > > >> > > >> 0.x
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can
> >> fix,
> >> > > the
> >> > > >> > > merrier,
> >> > > >> > > >> > and
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman
> for
> >> a
> >> > bug
> >> > > >> fix
> >> > > >> > > >> > release of
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be
> >> great
> >> > to
> >> > > >> have
> >> > > >> > > >> fixed,
> >> > > >> > > >> > I
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes
> >> and
> >> > a
> >> > > >> > couple
> >> > > >> > > >> known
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially
> >> as a
> >> > > lot
> >> > > >> of
> >> > > >> > > our
> >> > > >> > > >> > effort
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted
> if
> >> > > patches
> >> > > >> > were
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> >> > > >> > interest/demand
> >> > > >> > > >> > signal
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
> >> > > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > All,
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the
> >> next
> >> > > >> > official
> >> > > >> > > >> > release
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> of
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be
> >> numbered
> >> > > >> 0.7.1
> >> > > >> > > since
> >> > > >> > > >> > it
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x
> >> > branch
> >> > > >> since
> >> > > >> > > >> 0.7.0
> >> > > >> > > >> > was
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > released.
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets
> that
> >> > have
> >> > > >> been
> >> > > >> > > >> > completed
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this
> list
> >> > that
> >> > > >> are
> >> > > >> > > >> > resolved.
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet
> >> complete
> >> > > >> that
> >> > > >> > we
> >> > > >> > > >> need
> >> > > >> > > >> > to
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in
> >> > master
> >> > > >> but
> >> > > >> > > this
> >> > > >> > > >> > ticket
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically
> >> targeted
> >> > to
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> > 0.x
> >> > > >> > > >> > branch,
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%
> >> > 20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> >> > > >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
Does anyone object to Joe Skora being release manager for 0.7.1? Based on
this [1] I don't see any reason he shouldn't be able to. I've offered out
of band to assist.
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#release_manager
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I'm certainly willing to not do it! That being said, I don't know
> that we've had a non-PMC member do the job of RM'ing (I tried to find logs
> of it all, and failed).
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Joe Skora <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in the
>> future.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
>> > 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
>> >
>> > I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear otherwise, I
>> > presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a good
>> 24
>> > hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an
>> RC.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x
>> branches. +1
>> > > on a release from the 0.x branch now.
>> > >
>> > > -- Mike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to
>> be
>> > in
>> > > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the
>> current
>> > > state
>> > > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
>> > > >
>> > > > -- Mike
>> > > >
>> > > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
>> > > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion.
>> > Oleg,
>> > > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in
>> the
>> > > next
>> > > >> 0.x release?
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Tony
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am
>> going
>> > > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I
>> am
>> > > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not
>> > change.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > -- Mike
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > Team,
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Thanks
>> > > >> > > Joe
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <
>> > moser.mw@gmail.com>
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need
>> > someone
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository.
>> > Once
>> > > >> > those
>> > > >> > > are
>> > > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > -- Mike
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >
>> > > >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are
>> we
>> > > >> feeling
>> > > >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
>> > > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <
>> joe.witt@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > >> > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed
>> > already.
>> > > >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
>> > > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > Thanks
>> > > >> > > >> > Joe
>> > > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <
>> > brd@jhu.edu
>> > > >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I
>> think
>> > > >> Mike's
>> > > >> > > >> > question
>> > > >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets
>> > were
>> > > >> worth
>> > > >> > > >> fixing
>> > > >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even
>> if
>> > its
>> > > >> in
>> > > >> > > 0.7.2
>> > > >> > > >> or
>> > > >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
>> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently
>> > > committed
>> > > >> (or
>> > > >> > > have
>> > > >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon
>> as
>> > > >> > > possible. So
>> > > >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather
>> > address
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > > >> > immediate
>> > > >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > Brandon
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <
>> > trkurc@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we
>> > may
>> > > do
>> > > >> > more
>> > > >> > > >> 0.x
>> > > >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can
>> fix,
>> > > the
>> > > >> > > merrier,
>> > > >> > > >> > and
>> > > >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for
>> a
>> > bug
>> > > >> fix
>> > > >> > > >> > release of
>> > > >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
>> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be
>> great
>> > to
>> > > >> have
>> > > >> > > >> fixed,
>> > > >> > > >> > I
>> > > >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes
>> and
>> > a
>> > > >> > couple
>> > > >> > > >> known
>> > > >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially
>> as a
>> > > lot
>> > > >> of
>> > > >> > > our
>> > > >> > > >> > effort
>> > > >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if
>> > > patches
>> > > >> > were
>> > > >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
>> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
>> > > >> > interest/demand
>> > > >> > > >> > signal
>> > > >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
>> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
>> > > moser.mw@gmail.com>
>> > > >> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > All,
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the
>> next
>> > > >> > official
>> > > >> > > >> > release
>> > > >> > > >> > >> of
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be
>> numbered
>> > > >> 0.7.1
>> > > >> > > since
>> > > >> > > >> > it
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x
>> > branch
>> > > >> since
>> > > >> > > >> 0.7.0
>> > > >> > > >> > was
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > released.
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that
>> > have
>> > > >> been
>> > > >> > > >> > completed
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list
>> > that
>> > > >> are
>> > > >> > > >> > resolved.
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet
>> complete
>> > > >> that
>> > > >> > we
>> > > >> > > >> need
>> > > >> > > >> > to
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in
>> > master
>> > > >> but
>> > > >> > > this
>> > > >> > > >> > ticket
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically
>> targeted
>> > to
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> > 0.x
>> > > >> > > >> > branch,
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
>> > > >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%
>> > 20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
>> > > >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
>> > > >> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > > >> >
>> > > >> > > >>
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
Well I'm certainly willing to not do it! That being said, I don't know that
we've had a non-PMC member do the job of RM'ing (I tried to find logs of it
all, and failed).
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Joe Skora <js...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in the
> future.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
> > 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
> >
> > I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear otherwise, I
> > presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a good
> 24
> > hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an
> RC.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x branches.
> +1
> > > on a release from the 0.x branch now.
> > >
> > > -- Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to
> be
> > in
> > > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the current
> > > state
> > > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
> > > >
> > > > -- Mike
> > > >
> > > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
> > > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion.
> > Oleg,
> > > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the
> > > next
> > > >> 0.x release?
> > > >>
> > > >> Tony
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am
> going
> > > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I
> am
> > > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not
> > change.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -- Mike
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Team,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> > > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks
> > > >> > > Joe
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <
> > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need
> > someone
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository.
> > Once
> > > >> > those
> > > >> > > are
> > > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > -- Mike
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are
> we
> > > >> feeling
> > > >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <
> joe.witt@gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed
> > already.
> > > >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > Thanks
> > > >> > > >> > Joe
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <
> > brd@jhu.edu
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I
> think
> > > >> Mike's
> > > >> > > >> > question
> > > >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets
> > were
> > > >> worth
> > > >> > > >> fixing
> > > >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if
> > its
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > 0.7.2
> > > >> > > >> or
> > > >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> > > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently
> > > committed
> > > >> (or
> > > >> > > have
> > > >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon
> as
> > > >> > > possible. So
> > > >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather
> > address
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> > immediate
> > > >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > Brandon
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <
> > trkurc@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we
> > may
> > > do
> > > >> > more
> > > >> > > >> 0.x
> > > >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can
> fix,
> > > the
> > > >> > > merrier,
> > > >> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a
> > bug
> > > >> fix
> > > >> > > >> > release of
> > > >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great
> > to
> > > >> have
> > > >> > > >> fixed,
> > > >> > > >> > I
> > > >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes
> and
> > a
> > > >> > couple
> > > >> > > >> known
> > > >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as
> a
> > > lot
> > > >> of
> > > >> > > our
> > > >> > > >> > effort
> > > >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if
> > > patches
> > > >> > were
> > > >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> > > >> > interest/demand
> > > >> > > >> > signal
> > > >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
> > > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >> > All,
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the
> next
> > > >> > official
> > > >> > > >> > release
> > > >> > > >> > >> of
> > > >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be
> numbered
> > > >> 0.7.1
> > > >> > > since
> > > >> > > >> > it
> > > >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x
> > branch
> > > >> since
> > > >> > > >> 0.7.0
> > > >> > > >> > was
> > > >> > > >> > >> > released.
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that
> > have
> > > >> been
> > > >> > > >> > completed
> > > >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list
> > that
> > > >> are
> > > >> > > >> > resolved.
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet
> complete
> > > >> that
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > >> need
> > > >> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in
> > master
> > > >> but
> > > >> > > this
> > > >> > > >> > ticket
> > > >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted
> > to
> > > >> the
> > > >> > 0.x
> > > >> > > >> > branch,
> > > >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
> > > >> > > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> > > >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%
> > 20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> > > >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> > > >> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Joe Skora <js...@gmail.com>.
I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in the
future.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
> 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
>
> I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear otherwise, I
> presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a good 24
> hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an RC.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x branches. +1
> > on a release from the 0.x branch now.
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to be
> in
> > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the current
> > state
> > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
> > >
> > > -- Mike
> > >
> > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
> > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion.
> Oleg,
> > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the
> > next
> > >> 0.x release?
> > >>
> > >> Tony
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
> > >> >
> > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going
> > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am
> > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not
> change.
> > >> >
> > >> > -- Mike
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Team,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks
> > >> > > Joe
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <
> moser.mw@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need
> someone
> > >> to
> > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository.
> Once
> > >> > those
> > >> > > are
> > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -- Mike
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we
> > >> feeling
> > >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com
> >
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed
> already.
> > >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Thanks
> > >> > > >> > Joe
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <
> brd@jhu.edu
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think
> > >> Mike's
> > >> > > >> > question
> > >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets
> were
> > >> worth
> > >> > > >> fixing
> > >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if
> its
> > >> in
> > >> > > 0.7.2
> > >> > > >> or
> > >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> > >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently
> > committed
> > >> (or
> > >> > > have
> > >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as
> > >> > > possible. So
> > >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather
> address
> > >> the
> > >> > > >> > immediate
> > >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > Brandon
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <
> trkurc@gmail.com
> > >
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >
> > >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we
> may
> > do
> > >> > more
> > >> > > >> 0.x
> > >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix,
> > the
> > >> > > merrier,
> > >> > > >> > and
> > >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a
> bug
> > >> fix
> > >> > > >> > release of
> > >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great
> to
> > >> have
> > >> > > >> fixed,
> > >> > > >> > I
> > >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and
> a
> > >> > couple
> > >> > > >> known
> > >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a
> > lot
> > >> of
> > >> > > our
> > >> > > >> > effort
> > >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if
> > patches
> > >> > were
> > >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> > >> > interest/demand
> > >> > > >> > signal
> > >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
> > moser.mw@gmail.com>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> > >> > All,
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next
> > >> > official
> > >> > > >> > release
> > >> > > >> > >> of
> > >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered
> > >> 0.7.1
> > >> > > since
> > >> > > >> > it
> > >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x
> branch
> > >> since
> > >> > > >> 0.7.0
> > >> > > >> > was
> > >> > > >> > >> > released.
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that
> have
> > >> been
> > >> > > >> > completed
> > >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list
> that
> > >> are
> > >> > > >> > resolved.
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete
> > >> that
> > >> > we
> > >> > > >> need
> > >> > > >> > to
> > >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in
> master
> > >> but
> > >> > > this
> > >> > > >> > ticket
> > >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted
> to
> > >> the
> > >> > 0.x
> > >> > > >> > branch,
> > >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
> > >> > > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> > >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%
> 20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> > >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of
40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear otherwise, I
presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a good 24
hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an RC.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x branches. +1
> on a release from the 0.x branch now.
>
> -- Mike
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to be in
> > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the current
> state
> > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
> >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion. Oleg,
> >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the
> next
> >> 0.x release?
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
> >> >
> >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going
> >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am
> >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not change.
> >> >
> >> > -- Mike
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Team,
> >> > >
> >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> >> > >
> >> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > Joe
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone
> >> to
> >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once
> >> > those
> >> > > are
> >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -- Mike
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we
> >> feeling
> >> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
> >> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Thanks
> >> > > >> > Joe
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <brd@jhu.edu
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think
> >> Mike's
> >> > > >> > question
> >> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were
> >> worth
> >> > > >> fixing
> >> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its
> >> in
> >> > > 0.7.2
> >> > > >> or
> >> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> >> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently
> committed
> >> (or
> >> > > have
> >> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as
> >> > > possible. So
> >> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address
> >> the
> >> > > >> > immediate
> >> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > Brandon
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > >
> >> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may
> do
> >> > more
> >> > > >> 0.x
> >> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix,
> the
> >> > > merrier,
> >> > > >> > and
> >> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug
> >> fix
> >> > > >> > release of
> >> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to
> >> have
> >> > > >> fixed,
> >> > > >> > I
> >> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a
> >> > couple
> >> > > >> known
> >> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a
> lot
> >> of
> >> > > our
> >> > > >> > effort
> >> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if
> patches
> >> > were
> >> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> >> > interest/demand
> >> > > >> > signal
> >> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <
> moser.mw@gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> > >> > All,
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next
> >> > official
> >> > > >> > release
> >> > > >> > >> of
> >> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered
> >> 0.7.1
> >> > > since
> >> > > >> > it
> >> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch
> >> since
> >> > > >> 0.7.0
> >> > > >> > was
> >> > > >> > >> > released.
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have
> >> been
> >> > > >> > completed
> >> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that
> >> are
> >> > > >> > resolved.
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete
> >> that
> >> > we
> >> > > >> need
> >> > > >> > to
> >> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master
> >> but
> >> > > this
> >> > > >> > ticket
> >> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to
> >> the
> >> > 0.x
> >> > > >> > branch,
> >> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >> > [1] -
> >> > > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> >> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> >> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> >> > > >> > >> >
> >> > > >> > >>
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>.
NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x branches. +1
on a release from the 0.x branch now.
-- Mike
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to be in
> 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the current state
> of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
>
> -- Mike
>
> On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
>> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion. Oleg,
>> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the next
>> 0.x release?
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
>> >
>> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going
>> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am
>> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not change.
>> >
>> > -- Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Team,
>> > >
>> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
>> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
>> > >
>> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > > Joe
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone
>> to
>> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once
>> > those
>> > > are
>> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
>> > > >
>> > > > -- Mike
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we
>> feeling
>> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
>> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Thanks
>> > > >> > Joe
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think
>> Mike's
>> > > >> > question
>> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were
>> worth
>> > > >> fixing
>> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its
>> in
>> > > 0.7.2
>> > > >> or
>> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
>> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed
>> (or
>> > > have
>> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as
>> > > possible. So
>> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address
>> the
>> > > >> > immediate
>> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > Brandon
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > >
>> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do
>> > more
>> > > >> 0.x
>> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the
>> > > merrier,
>> > > >> > and
>> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug
>> fix
>> > > >> > release of
>> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to
>> have
>> > > >> fixed,
>> > > >> > I
>> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a
>> > couple
>> > > >> known
>> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot
>> of
>> > > our
>> > > >> > effort
>> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches
>> > were
>> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
>> > interest/demand
>> > > >> > signal
>> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> > >> > All,
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next
>> > official
>> > > >> > release
>> > > >> > >> of
>> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered
>> 0.7.1
>> > > since
>> > > >> > it
>> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch
>> since
>> > > >> 0.7.0
>> > > >> > was
>> > > >> > >> > released.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have
>> been
>> > > >> > completed
>> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that
>> are
>> > > >> > resolved.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete
>> that
>> > we
>> > > >> need
>> > > >> > to
>> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master
>> but
>> > > this
>> > > >> > ticket
>> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to
>> the
>> > 0.x
>> > > >> > branch,
>> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >> > [1] -
>> > > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
>> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
>> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
>> > > >> > >> >
>> > > >> > >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>.
I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to be in
0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the current state
of the PR and I am +1 in that respect.
-- Mike
On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion. Oleg,
> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the next
> 0.x release?
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
> >
> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going
> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am
> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not change.
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Team,
> > >
> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> > >
> > > It should probably be in this release if able.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone to
> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once
> > those
> > > are
> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> > > >
> > > > -- Mike
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we
> feeling
> > > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
> > > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks
> > > >> > Joe
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think
> Mike's
> > > >> > question
> > > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were
> worth
> > > >> fixing
> > > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in
> > > 0.7.2
> > > >> or
> > > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> > > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed
> (or
> > > have
> > > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as
> > > possible. So
> > > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address
> the
> > > >> > immediate
> > > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Brandon
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do
> > more
> > > >> 0.x
> > > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the
> > > merrier,
> > > >> > and
> > > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug
> fix
> > > >> > release of
> > > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to
> have
> > > >> fixed,
> > > >> > I
> > > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a
> > couple
> > > >> known
> > > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot
> of
> > > our
> > > >> > effort
> > > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches
> > were
> > > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> > interest/demand
> > > >> > signal
> > > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > All,
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next
> > official
> > > >> > release
> > > >> > >> of
> > > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered
> 0.7.1
> > > since
> > > >> > it
> > > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch
> since
> > > >> 0.7.0
> > > >> > was
> > > >> > >> > released.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have
> been
> > > >> > completed
> > > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that
> are
> > > >> > resolved.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that
> > we
> > > >> need
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Patch Available
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but
> > > this
> > > >> > ticket
> > > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the
> > 0.x
> > > >> > branch,
> > > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > -- Mike
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > [1] -
> > > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> > > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> > > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429,
NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion. Oleg,
Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the next
0.x release?
Tony
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
>
> Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going
> through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am
> changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not change.
>
> -- Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Team,
> >
> > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/NIFI-2874
> >
> > It should probably be in this release if able.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone to
> > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once
> those
> > are
> > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> > >
> > > -- Mike
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we feeling
> > >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
> > >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks
> > >> > Joe
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's
> > >> > question
> > >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth
> > >> fixing
> > >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in
> > 0.7.2
> > >> or
> > >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> > >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > >> > >
> > >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or
> > have
> > >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as
> > possible. So
> > >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the
> > >> > immediate
> > >> > > needs... Immediately.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Brandon
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do
> more
> > >> 0.x
> > >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the
> > merrier,
> > >> > and
> > >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix
> > >> > release of
> > >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have
> > >> fixed,
> > >> > I
> > >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a
> couple
> > >> known
> > >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of
> > our
> > >> > effort
> > >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches
> were
> > >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is
> interest/demand
> > >> > signal
> > >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > All,
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next
> official
> > >> > release
> > >> > >> of
> > >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1
> > since
> > >> > it
> > >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since
> > >> 0.7.0
> > >> > was
> > >> > >> > released.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been
> > >> > completed
> > >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are
> > >> > resolved.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that
> we
> > >> need
> > >> > to
> > >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Patch Available
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but
> > this
> > >> > ticket
> > >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the
> 0.x
> > >> > branch,
> > >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> > >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> > >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > -- Mike
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > [1] -
> > >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> > >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> > >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x.
Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going
through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am
changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not change.
-- Mike
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Team,
>
> Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/
> jira/browse/NIFI-2874
>
> It should probably be in this release if able.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone to
> > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once those
> are
> > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we feeling
> >> about what our timeline should be on this?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
> >> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Joe
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu>
> wrote:
> >> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's
> >> > question
> >> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth
> >> fixing
> >> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> >> > >
> >> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > >
> >> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in
> 0.7.2
> >> or
> >> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> >> > >
> >> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> >> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > >
> >> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or
> have
> >> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as
> possible. So
> >> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the
> >> > immediate
> >> > > needs... Immediately.
> >> > >
> >> > > Brandon
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more
> >> 0.x
> >> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the
> merrier,
> >> > and
> >> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix
> >> > release of
> >> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have
> >> fixed,
> >> > I
> >> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple
> >> known
> >> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of
> our
> >> > effort
> >> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
> >> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand
> >> > signal
> >> > >> for in another 0.x.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > All,
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official
> >> > release
> >> > >> of
> >> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1
> since
> >> > it
> >> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since
> >> 0.7.0
> >> > was
> >> > >> > released.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been
> >> > completed
> >> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are
> >> > resolved.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we
> >> need
> >> > to
> >> > >> > decide what to do with.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Patch Available
> >> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> >> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> >> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> >> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but
> this
> >> > ticket
> >> > >> > is for 0.x)
> >> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> >> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x
> >> > branch,
> >> > >> > should we try to work these?
> >> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> >> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> >> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> >> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > -- Mike
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > [1] -
> >> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> >> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> >> 2C%200.8.0%29
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>.
Team,
Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2874
It should probably be in this release if able.
Thanks
Joe
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone to
> review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once those are
> complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
>
> -- Mike
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we feeling
>> about what our timeline should be on this?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
>> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu> wrote:
>> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's
>> > question
>> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth
>> fixing
>> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
>> > >
>> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > >
>> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in 0.7.2
>> or
>> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
>> > >
>> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
>> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > >
>> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or have
>> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as possible. So
>> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the
>> > immediate
>> > > needs... Immediately.
>> > >
>> > > Brandon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more
>> 0.x
>> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier,
>> > and
>> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix
>> > release of
>> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
>> > >>
>> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have
>> fixed,
>> > I
>> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple
>> known
>> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our
>> > effort
>> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
>> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
>> > >>
>> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand
>> > signal
>> > >> for in another 0.x.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > All,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official
>> > release
>> > >> of
>> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since
>> > it
>> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since
>> 0.7.0
>> > was
>> > >> > released.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been
>> > completed
>> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are
>> > resolved.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we
>> need
>> > to
>> > >> > decide what to do with.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Patch Available
>> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
>> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
>> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
>> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this
>> > ticket
>> > >> > is for 0.x)
>> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
>> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x
>> > branch,
>> > >> > should we try to work these?
>> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
>> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
>> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
>> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -- Mike
>> > >> >
>> > >> > [1] -
>> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
>> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
>> 2C%200.8.0%29
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Michael Moser <mo...@gmail.com>.
I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone to
review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once those are
complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1.
-- Mike
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we feeling
> about what our timeline should be on this?
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
> > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu> wrote:
> > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's
> > question
> > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth
> fixing
> > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> > >
> > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > >
> > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in 0.7.2
> or
> > > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> > >
> > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > >
> > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or have
> > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as possible. So
> > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the
> > immediate
> > > needs... Immediately.
> > >
> > > Brandon
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more
> 0.x
> > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier,
> > and
> > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix
> > release of
> > >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> > >>
> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have
> fixed,
> > I
> > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple
> known
> > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our
> > effort
> > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
> > >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> > >>
> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand
> > signal
> > >> for in another 0.x.
> > >>
> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > All,
> > >> >
> > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official
> > release
> > >> of
> > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since
> > it
> > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since
> 0.7.0
> > was
> > >> > released.
> > >> >
> > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been
> > completed
> > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are
> > resolved.
> > >> >
> > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we
> need
> > to
> > >> > decide what to do with.
> > >> >
> > >> > Patch Available
> > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> > >> >
> > >> > Open against 0.7.0
> > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this
> > ticket
> > >> > is for 0.x)
> > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> > >> >
> > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x
> > branch,
> > >> > should we try to work these?
> > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > >> >
> > >> > -- Mike
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] -
> > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%
> 2C%200.8.0%29
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we feeling
about what our timeline should be on this?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
> Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu> wrote:
> > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's
> question
> > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth fixing
> > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
> >
> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >
> > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in 0.7.2 or
> > 0.8.0, e.g.:
> >
> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >
> > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or have
> > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as possible. So
> > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the
> immediate
> > needs... Immediately.
> >
> > Brandon
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more 0.x
> >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier,
> and
> >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix
> release of
> >> we collectively would like to put one together.
> >>
> >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have fixed,
> I
> >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple known
> >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our
> effort
> >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
> >> developed for the 0.x issues?
> >>
> >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand
> signal
> >> for in another 0.x.
> >>
> >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official
> release
> >> of
> >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since
> it
> >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0
> was
> >> > released.
> >> >
> >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been
> completed
> >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are
> resolved.
> >> >
> >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we need
> to
> >> > decide what to do with.
> >> >
> >> > Patch Available
> >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> >> >
> >> > Open against 0.7.0
> >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this
> ticket
> >> > is for 0.x)
> >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> >> >
> >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x
> branch,
> >> > should we try to work these?
> >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >> >
> >> > -- Mike
> >> >
> >> > [1] -
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%2C%200.8.0%29
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Joe Witt <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already.
Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM!
Thanks
Joe
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu> wrote:
> I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's question
> to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth fixing
> in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
>
> NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>
> On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in 0.7.2 or
> 0.8.0, e.g.:
>
> NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
> NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>
> But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or have
> patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as possible. So
> rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the immediate
> needs... Immediately.
>
> Brandon
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more 0.x
>> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier, and
>> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix release of
>> we collectively would like to put one together.
>>
>> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have fixed, I
>> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple known
>> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our effort
>> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
>> developed for the 0.x issues?
>>
>> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand signal
>> for in another 0.x.
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > All,
>> >
>> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official release
>> of
>> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since it
>> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0 was
>> > released.
>> >
>> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been completed
>> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are resolved.
>> >
>> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we need to
>> > decide what to do with.
>> >
>> > Patch Available
>> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
>> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
>> >
>> > Open against 0.7.0
>> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
>> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this ticket
>> > is for 0.x)
>> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
>> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
>> >
>> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x branch,
>> > should we try to work these?
>> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
>> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
>> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
>> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
>> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
>> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>> >
>> > -- Mike
>> >
>> > [1] -
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
>> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%2C%200.8.0%29
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Brandon DeVries <br...@jhu.edu>.
I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's question
to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth fixing
in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in 0.7.2 or
0.8.0, e.g.:
NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors
NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or have
patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as possible. So
rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the immediate
needs... Immediately.
Brandon
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more 0.x
> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier, and
> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix release of
> we collectively would like to put one together.
>
> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have fixed, I
> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple known
> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our effort
> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
> developed for the 0.x issues?
>
> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand signal
> for in another 0.x.
>
> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official release
> of
> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since it
> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0 was
> > released.
> >
> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been completed
> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are resolved.
> >
> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we need to
> > decide what to do with.
> >
> > Patch Available
> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
> >
> > Open against 0.7.0
> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this ticket
> > is for 0.x)
> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
> >
> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x branch,
> > should we try to work these?
> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
> >
> > -- Mike
> >
> > [1] -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%2C%200.8.0%29
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Posted by Tony Kurc <tr...@gmail.com>.
I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more 0.x
releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier, and
it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix release of
we collectively would like to put one together.
While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have fixed, I
personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple known
issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our effort
is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were
developed for the 0.x issues?
Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand signal
for in another 0.x.
On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> I would like to start the discussion of making the next official release of
> the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since it
> seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0 was
> released.
>
> The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been completed
> in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are resolved.
>
> Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we need to
> decide what to do with.
>
> Patch Available
> NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository
> NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS
>
> Open against 0.7.0
> NIFI-2383 ListFiles
> NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this ticket
> is for 0.x)
> NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade
> NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation
>
> Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x branch,
> should we try to work these?
> NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors
> NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type
> NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec
> NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI
> NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption
> NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
>
> -- Mike
>
> [1] -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql=
> project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%2C%200.8.0%29
>