nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Closing in on a 0.x release
Date Mon, 10 Oct 2016 13:39:52 GMT
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
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message