nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Percivall <joeperciv...@yahoo.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on the Apache NiFi 0.7.0 Release
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:56:09 GMT
Team,

There was a lot of great progress yesterday, we closed or pushed 6 tickets. Also two tickets
were added that are either critical or finishing shortly. The status of the remaining 12 tickets
are below:

- "Corrupted flow file leads to a wedged flow" NIFI-2015[1] Added yesterday. Christopher McDermott,
Mark Payne and Oleg Zhurakousky have been discussing the bug but no resolution yet.

- "Allow user to specify file filter regex when unpacking zip/tar archives" NIFI-1568[2] [status]
Matt Burgess is continuing to review

- "Create PutSlack processor" NIFI-1578 [3] [status] Actively being worked on by contributor
and reviewers

-  "Allow empty Content-Type in InvokeHTTP processor" NIFI-1620[4] [status] No change since
yesterday, still waiting for final review by Adam Taft. Commented asking if Adam would like
me to finish the review

- "If unable to write to Content Repository, Process Session should automatically roll itself
back" NIFI-1644[5] [status] No progress, commented asking Mark Payne (reporter) to see if
it can slide.

- "Misconfigured MonitorMemory ReportingTask can not be stopped" NIFI-1690[6] [status] Actively
being worked on by contributor and reviewer

- "Support Custom Properties in Expression Language" NIFI-1974[7] [status] New yesterday.
Yolanda Davis submitted the PR and review by Mark Payne. Both are actively working on it.

- "StandardProcessNode and AbstractConfiguredComponent duplicate instance variable "annotationData""
NIFI-2009[8] [status] +1 from committer, just waiting to be merged

- "Create a processor to extract WAV file characteristics" NIFI-615[9] [status] No change
since yesterday, I will review. Needs rebase though

- "Add SNMP processors" NIFI-1537[10] [status] No significant change since yesterday, Oleg
Zhurakousky is waiting for Pierre Villard to rebase.

- "Add option to bulk using Index or Update to PutElasticsearch" NIFI-1594[11] [status] João
Henrique Ferreira de Freitas addressed Matt Burgess' comments and is waiting for final review
by Matt

- "Create FlowDebugger processor" NIFI-1829[12] [status] Joe Skora added another commit and
rebased. Tony won't be able to finalize review until the weekend, Michael Moser volunteered
to finish

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2015
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1568
[3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1578
[4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1620
[5] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1644
[6] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1690
[7] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1974
[8] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2009
[9] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-615
[10] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1537
[11] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1594
[12] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1829
- - - - - - 
Joseph Percivall
linkedin.com/in/Percivall
e: joepercivall@yahoo.com




On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:11 PM, Andre <andre-lists@fucs.org> wrote:
Tony,

I second Joe's comments as well.

Since the early discussions about the branching model I have been under the
total impression that once 1.0 is released, 0.x would become support only
and updates restricted to critical issues (security & data-loss
break-fixes).

This is not to say that a NPE or a 100% CPU issue shouldn't be backported,
but I would imagine the effort to port to 0.x should be driven by the
contributor rather than the merger (as it is being done atm).


On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to the discussion we had about the management of the release
> lines there would only be incremental releases when something was critical
> enough (security or data loss).  And, if someone really wanted needed a
> minor release they could initiate and do that as well.  But as far as
> continued feature development and focus it would shift to 1.0.
>
> So emphasis moves to new major line but those staying on the old major can
> still have options as well.
> On Jun 14, 2016 5:31 PM, "Tony Kurc" <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe, for some reason, my mental image was that I expected we'd keep
> releasing new 0.x minor releases for a while along with 1.x.
>
> Is that everyone else's expectations?
>

Mime
View raw message