Should be there now. On 4/4/16, 9:57 AM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote:
>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 >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
