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