nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:45:10 GMT
Team,

Status of JIRA cleanup toward an Apache NiFi 1.2.0 release candidate
which Mr Bende has so wonderfully volunteered to RM:

There are 20 open JIRAs as of now.

12 of 20 have PRs that appear ready/close to ready.

One pattern I noticed quite a bit on the 1.2.0 release is heavy usage
of 'squatter JIRAs' whereby someone makes a JIRA and with or without
any review traction and for non blocking issues sets the fix version.
This practice should be avoided.  The fix version should be reserved
for once there is a blocker item or there is something with a patch
contributed and review progress closing in on a merge.

One of them means we need to punt the Twitter processor most likely.
Don't believe there were new releases to resolve that licensing issue
by the third party dependency.  I'll take that on.
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3089

Two of them are build failure issues which means windows and linux
builds break (highly repeatable):
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3441
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3440

A couple need to either be moved out or addressed for implementation
or review but it isn't clear to me their status:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3155
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1280
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2656
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2886

Some are really important and being worked still:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3520

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning) should
>> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
>>
>> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
>> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that tomorrow.
>> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
>>
>> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
>> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
>> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
>> remaining tickets.
>>
>> -Bryan
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
>>> course is out.
>>>
>>> We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
>>> make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> JOe
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Just a quick update on this discussion...
>>> >
>>> > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
>>> > versioning work [1].
>>> >
>>> > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
>>> > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
>>> >
>>> > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
>>> > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
>>> >
>>> > -Bryan
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
>>> > [2]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing <jvwing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
>>> feature.
>>> >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> James
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> James,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No problem :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the
JIRAs
>>> >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be
moved
>>> >>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
>>> >>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
>>> >>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured
if
>>> >>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been
done
>>> >>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just
wanted
>>> >>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping
for
>>> >>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without
it.
>>> >>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of
work
>>> >>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
>>> >>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
>>> >>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
>>> >>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
>>> >>> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code
for
>>> >>> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
>>> >>> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually
make
>>> >>> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run
older
>>> >>> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
>>> >>> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
>>> >>> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to
run
>>> >>> two versions of that NAR at the same time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work
if
>>> >>> anyone is interested.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Bryan
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman <russ@windofkeltia.com
>>> >
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all
the hard
>>> work.
>>> >>> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> So the alternatives are:
>>> >>> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
>>> >>> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component
>>> versioning
>>> >>> >> work
>>> >>> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?
 Or is
>>> the
>>> >>> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> James
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged
for 1.2.0 is
>>> >>> >>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component"
[1] and
>>> >>> >>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The
functionality
>>> is
>>> >>> >>> very close to being done and I think we should get
this into the
>>> 1.2.0
>>> >>> >>> release.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> In order to fully leverage the versioned components
we will need to
>>> >>> >>> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do
that first and
>>> >>> >>> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone
is on-board
>>> with
>>> >>> >>> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release
the new
>>> >>> >>> plugin which would be soon.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
>>> >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock <jgresock@gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> This is good discussion that should continue, but
what about the
>>> >>> >>>> original
>>> >>> >>>> intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks
can think of to
>>> hold
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> off
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> on a 1.2.0 release?"
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Andy,
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in
over a week, but I
>>> think
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> it's
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> important to keep going.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my
ticket that has a
>>> patch
>>> >>> >>>>> available to see which state it returned to.
>>> >>> >>>>> It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree
is less than ideal.
>>> >>> >>>>> Though
>>> >>> >>>>> we could certainly have a process
>>> >>> >>>>> by which we change the status to "In Progress"
after canceling
>>> the
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> patch.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours
is in the meaning
>>> of
>>> >>> "In
>>> >>> >>>>> Review." Let's say that you submit a
>>> >>> >>>>> patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find
that it needs some
>>> work -
>>> >>> >>>>> let's say there's an issue with licensing
>>> >>> >>>>> not being properly accounted for, for instance.
At that point, I
>>> no
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> longer
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> consider the patch that you provided
>>> >>> >>>>> to be "In Review." I believe the patch should
be canceled, and
>>> you
>>> >>> will
>>> >>> >>>>> need to submit a new patch. I guess
>>> >>> >>>>> that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto
<alopresto@apache.org
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> <mailto:a
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> lopresto@apache.org>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Mark,
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Your understanding of “Patch Available”
certainly makes sense
>>> and it
>>> >>> >>>>> explains why you approach the process the way
you do. I have a
>>> >>> slightly
>>> >>> >>>>> different personal understanding of “Patch
Available” — I read
>>> it to
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> mean
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> “the person responsible for this Jira has
contributed code they
>>> feel
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> solves
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> the issue.” A review will (hopefully) determine
if that
>>> assertion is
>>> >>> >>>>> correct and complete. I think we kind of agree
on "my viewpoint
>>> is
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> simply
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review"
or "In Review.””
>>> but I
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> see
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> “In Review” as a potentially iterative
process — it could be on
>>> the
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> second
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> pass of the contributor responding to comments,
but it’s still
>>> “In
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> Review”
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> in my eyes. I don’t know that the granularity
of Jira supports
>>> the
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> specific
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> workflow states of “been reviewed once but
not complete/accepted
>>> >>> yet”.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> What state does “Cancel Patch” result in?
If it just reverts to
>>> >>> “Open”,
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> I
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> don’t see the value because that obfuscates
the difference
>>> between a
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> Jira
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> that hasn’t even been touched and one that
has 90% of the code
>>> done.
>>> >>> I
>>> >>> >>>>> agree we should make the RM’s job easier,
but I also think it
>>> doesn’t
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> help
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> the visibility for reviewers to see a Jira
marked as “open” when
>>> >>> there
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> is
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> the potential for that patch to be ready for
merge in a very
>>> short
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> amount
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> of time.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I think these conversations will ultimately
help us narrow in on
>>> >>> shared
>>> >>> >>>>> definitions that make sense to everyone though,
so I’m glad we’re
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> talking
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> about it.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto@apache.org<mailto:alopresto@apache.org>
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com<mailto:alopresto.apache@gmail.com>
>>> >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 
BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D
>>> EF69
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com
>>> >>> <mailto:m
>>> >>> >>>>> arkap14@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Andy,
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> If the reviewer is looking for clarification,
then it may make
>>> sense
>>> >>> to
>>> >>> >>>>> leave the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
>>> >>> >>>>> as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed,
though, then the
>>> >>> patch
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> is
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
>>> >>> >>>>> Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready
to be committed."
>>> So if
>>> >>> >>>>> minor fixes are needed, then I believe
>>> >>> >>>>> it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those
changes (minor or
>>> not)
>>> >>> >>>>> are
>>> >>> >>>>> made and the PR updated, then the
>>> >>> >>>>> PR needs review again and the status should
be changed back to
>>> "Patch
>>> >>> >>>>> Available" again.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch
Available" means
>>> "Awaiting
>>> >>> >>>>> Review" or "In Review." If it is awaiting
>>> >>> >>>>> changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is,
then we should
>>> Cancel
>>> >>> >>>>> Patch.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Do you or others have differing views on the
meaning of "Patch
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> Available"?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks
>>> >>> >>>>> -Mark
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto
<alopresto@apache.org
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> <mailto:a
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> lopresto@apache.org><mailto:alopresto@apache.org>>
wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Mark,
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I like your point about updating the Jira with
the Fix Version
>>> at the
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> time
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> the PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted,
if the
>>> contributor
>>> >>> >>>>> is
>>> >>> >>>>> aware of this process). I think it’s better
than waiting for the
>>> >>> merge,
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> as
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I proposed before.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I agree that the reviewer is responsible for
keeping the Jira
>>> updated
>>> >>> >>>>> in
>>> >>> >>>>> line with their work. I don’t know if I am
on the same page as
>>> you
>>> >>> for
>>> >>> >>>>> “Cancel Patch” if the PR needs changes;
sometimes these are minor
>>> >>> fixes
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> or
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> just looking for clarification from the contributor,
and I don’t
>>> >>> think
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> that
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> warrants canceling the availability of the
patch. If they are
>>> major
>>> >>> >>>>> architectural changes, then that makes more
sense to me.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto@apache.org<mailto:alopresto@apache.org><mailto:alo
>>> >>> >>>>> presto@apache.org>
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com<mailto:alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>>> >>> ><mailto:
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com>
>>> >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 
BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D
>>> EF69
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com
>>> >>> <mailto:m
>>> >>> >>>>> arkap14@hotmail.com><mailto:markap14@hotmail.com>>
wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set
a Fix Version on
>>> JIRA's,
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> that
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> some PR's will be lost
>>> >>> >>>>> or stalled. I rarely go to github and start
looking through the
>>> PRs.
>>> >>> >>>>> Instead, I go to JIRA and look
>>> >>> >>>>> at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the
next release. Then
>>> I'll
>>> >>> go
>>> >>> >>>>> and review JIRA's that are
>>> >>> >>>>> in a state of "Patch Available." Even then
I often come across
>>> many
>>> >>> >>>>> PR's
>>> >>> >>>>> that have already been
>>> >>> >>>>> reviewed by one or more other committers and
are awaiting
>>> updates.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> So I propose that we address this slightly
differently. I believe
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> we
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> should assign a Fix Version to
>>> >>> >>>>> a JIRA whenever a PR is submitted. Then, whenever
a committer
>>> >>> reviews a
>>> >>> >>>>> PR, he/she should be
>>> >>> >>>>> responsible for updating the JIRA. If the PR
is merged then the
>>> JIRA
>>> >>> >>>>> should be resolved as Fixed.
>>> >>> >>>>> But if the PR is not merged because some changes
are needed, the
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> reviewer
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> should then go back to
>>> >>> >>>>> the JIRA and click 'Cancel Patch'. We are typically
very good
>>> about
>>> >>> >>>>> resolving as fixed once a PR is
>>> >>> >>>>> merged, but we don't typically cancel the patch
otherwise.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> If we followed this workflow, then a Release
Manager (or anyone
>>> else)
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> can
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> easily see which tickets
>>> >>> >>>>> need to be reviewed before a release happens
and which ones can
>>> be
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> pushed
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> out because they
>>> >>> >>>>> are not ready (even if a PR has been posted).
It also makes it
>>> much
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> easier
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> for reviewers to quickly
>>> >>> >>>>> know which tickets are awaiting review.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Thoughts?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> -Mark
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Andy LoPresto
<
>>> >>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com<
>>> >>> >>>>> mailto:alopresto.apache@gmail.com><mailto:
>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically
setting
>>> fix
>>> >>> >>>>> versions and then not meeting them, I second
Joe's point about it
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> holding
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> up releases. Better to get the PR out, reviewed,
and merged
>>> *before*
>>> >>> >>>>> setting the fix version in my opinion.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto@apache.org<mailto:alopresto@apache.org><mailto:alo
>>> >>> >>>>> presto@apache.org>
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com<mailto:alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>>> >>> ><mailto:
>>> >>> >>>>> alopresto.apache@gmail.com>
>>> >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 
BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D
>>> EF69
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com<mailto:
>>> joe
>>> >>> >>>>> .witt@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Peter,
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> This is just my preference so discussion is
certainly open.  But
>>> the
>>> >>> >>>>> way I see it we should not set the fix version
on JIRAs unless
>>> they
>>> >>> >>>>> really should block a release without resolution
or if due to
>>> some
>>> >>> >>>>> roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement
that
>>> is
>>> >>> >>>>> tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many
things which pop up
>>> >>> >>>>> throughout a given release cycle they should
be avoided.  That
>>> is to
>>> >>> >>>>> say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix
versions until the
>>> act of
>>> >>> >>>>> merging a contribution which also means it
has been reviewed.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>  From the release management point of view:
>>> >>> >>>>> This approach helps greatly as until now it
is has been really
>>> >>> >>>>> difficult and time consuming to pull together/close
down a
>>> release as
>>> >>> >>>>> pretty much anyone can set these fix versions
and make it appear
>>> as
>>> >>> >>>>> though the release is not ready when in reality
it is perfectly
>>> >>> >>>>> releasable as-is but might miss out on some
contribs that someone
>>> >>> >>>>> would like to see in the release but has as
of yet not gotten
>>> the PR
>>> >>> >>>>> and/or review traction necessary.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>  From the contributor point of view:
>>> >>> >>>>> If someone makes a contribution they obviously
want that code to
>>> end
>>> >>> >>>>> up in a release.  But being an RTC community
we need and want
>>> peer
>>> >>> >>>>> review before the code is submitted.  Some
contributions are
>>> frankly
>>> >>> >>>>> hard to get peer review on or simply take time
for someone to
>>> >>> >>>>> volunteer to do.  PRs which are difficult to
test, lack testing,
>>> are
>>> >>> >>>>> related to systems or environments which are
not easily
>>> replicated,
>>> >>> >>>>> etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review
for.  Also, the
>>> >>> >>>>> community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes
the hygiene of a
>>> >>> given
>>> >>> >>>>> PR isn't great.  So our 'patch available' and
'open PR' count
>>> ticks
>>> >>> >>>>> up.  We need reviews/feedback as much as we
need contributions
>>> so it
>>> >>> >>>>> is important for folks that want those contributions
in to build
>>> >>> >>>>> meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions.
 This
>>> helps
>>> >>> >>>>> build a network of contributors/reviewers and
improves the
>>> timeliness
>>> >>> >>>>> of reviews.  Long story short here is that
because at times PRs
>>> can
>>> >>> >>>>> sit too long sometimes people put a fix version
on the JIRA so it
>>> >>> acts
>>> >>> >>>>> as a sort of 'gating function' on the release.
 This I am saying
>>> is
>>> >>> >>>>> the practice that should not occur (given the
thoughts above).
>>> We
>>> >>> >>>>> should instead take the issue of how to more
effectively
>>> >>> >>>>> triage/review/provide feedback/and manage expectations
for
>>> >>> >>>>> contributions so contributors don't feel like
their stuff will
>>> just
>>> >>> >>>>> sit forever.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Does that make sense and seem fair?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks
>>> >>> >>>>> Joe
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Peter Wicks
(pwicks) <
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> pwicks@micron.com
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> <mailto:pwicks@micron.com>> wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>> Just for clarification, "We really need to
avoid the practice of
>>> >>> >>>>> setting
>>> >>> >>>>> fix versions without traction", would mean
don't set a version
>>> number
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> until
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> after we've submitted a PR? Until after the
PR has been closed?
>>> >>> Other?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks,
>>> >>> >>>>> Peter
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> >>> >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.witt@gmail.com]
>>> >>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM
>>> >>> >>>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org<mailto:dev@nifi.apache.org>
>>> >>> >>>>> Subject: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> team,
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> On the users lists we had an ask of when we
are planning to cut a
>>> >>> >>>>> 1.2.0 release.  And someone else asked me recently
off-list.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> There are 45 open JIRAs tagged to it as of
now.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
>>> >>> >>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20DESC
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> I'd be favorable to going through and seeing
if we can start the
>>> >>> >>>>> motions
>>> >>> >>>>> for a 1.2.0 release and which are ones we can
wait for and which
>>> we
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> should
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> have in 1.2.0 for sure.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Is there any reason folks can think of to hold
off on a 1.2.0
>>> >>> release?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> A non trivial number of the JIRAs are for things
which have or
>>> do not
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> have
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> PRs but have no review traction.  We really
need to avoid the
>>> >>> practice
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> of
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> setting fix versions without traction on this
as otherwise it
>>> holds
>>> >>> up
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> the
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> releases.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> Thanks
>>> >>> >>>>> Joe
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> --
>>> >>> >>>> I know what it is to be in need, and I know what
it is to have
>>> plenty.
>>> >>> >>>> I
>>> >>> >>>> have learned the secret of being content in any
and every
>>> situation,
>>> >>> >>>> whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty
or in want.
>>> I
>>> >>> can
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> do
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> all this through him who gives me strength.   
*-Philippians
>>> 4:12-13*
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile

Mime
View raw message