Hi Sumit - No problem - I can cut a new rc as soon as we have a go. Once the fix is pushed and the known issues with views is documented we can turn the crank again.
I will wait until at least tomorrow afternoon (eastern) for anyone else to raise a flag. Thanks! --larry On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Larry, > > I found a small bug last week while testing the new UI proxy support for > Ambari. This is a bug in the trunk version of ambari and does not appear > in the 2.2.0 version. Given that we need the trunk or the latest upcoming > release of Ambari to test the SSO work, we should get this fix in. > > Please also note that KNOX-705 is outstanding for the Ambari proxy UI work > and we will need to make it a known issue for the release. > > Sumit. > > > > On 4/2/16, 10:26 AM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >All - > > > >I have a couple small clean up tasks to take care of and will begin to > >clean up the 0.9.0 issue list. > >Hope to have an rc for 0.9.0 testing by Monday or Tuesday. > > > >If anyone has any issues that they would like to get into 0.9.0 please > >speak up and we can try and accommodate. > > > >thanks! > > > >--larry > > > >On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:36 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> All - > >> > >> We are ~10 days out from our target release date and have ~8 issues > >>still > >> open for 0.9.0. > >> > >> I've commented on a couple to see if we can close them or get a review > >> done, etc. > >> Over the next week or so, we will need to consider whether some of them > >> need to be moved out of the 0.9.0 release. > >> > >> If there are any issues in bank/future that anyone feels are critical > >>for > >> 0.9.0 please get them in as soon as possible. > >> > >> thanks, > >> > >> --larry > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Sumit Gupta > >><[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 on the release timing and management. I also think that a 0.9 > >>>before a > >>> 1.0 would make it easier for us to work through packaging changes and > >>>any > >>> other "1.0" type requirements in a more isolated fashion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/8/16, 9:59 AM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> >I agree. > >>> > > >>> >Perhaps, we can target a very focused 0.10.0 -> 1.0 followup release > >>> where > >>> >we can clearly identify any such breakages and help with the migration > >>> via > >>> >docs or tools or whatever? > >>> > > >>> >On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Kevin Minder > >>> ><[email protected]> > >>> >wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> 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 > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
