Thanks Larry, Just a FYI. The particular fix I wanted to push is in master. I know we are working through some other issues so I¹ll keep working on KNOX-705 in case I have a breakthrough before the cut (but we shouldn¹t hold up anything for it).
Sumit. On 4/3/16, 11:37 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>
