Can you cherry-pick the fix to v0.9.0? On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
