Hey Larry, Thanks for reviving the thread.
LDAP improvements seems like a decent theme and there is definitely a bunch of work to be done there. A couple of other things that would be good to have before we go for a 1.0 are (so we could consider including it in 0.10.0): 1. Adding metrics capabiltiies (so that we can get to metering and throttling) : KNOX-643 2. A basic admin UI : KNOX-727? (we likely need another JIRA) Also to close the loop on the 0.10.0 vs 1.0.0 question. I think we are saying that 0.10.0 is not a 1.0.0 release. And if so, I +1 that decision. The last thing to call out, is the dev time we are aiming at for the next release. I think I saw 1.5 months mentioned on another thread. I am certainly good with that and will always support the idea of more frequent releases. So +1 from my side to a 1.5 month duration for the next release. Sumit On 8/7/16, 12:11 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >All - > >Now that we have released 0.9.1 we should resurrect this thread and plan >the theme for 0.10.0 release. > >The filter [1] shows the JIRAs currently set for Fix Version 0.10.0, just >as my previous proposal on this thread, it seems that LDAP related >improvements are the dominate theme. > >With recent JIRA filings and patches provided, we have identified a few >pain points related to LDAP search/lookup. >A couple different approaches to optimize the group lookup may be >competing, separate options or complementary - we need to rationalize >exactly what optimizations are needed as part of this release. > >I will create a wiki page for Knox Improvement Proposal for the LDAP >improvements where we can capture the direction and implementation details >for this as the central theme for 0.10.0. > >Thoughts on the theme and KIP page for capturing a coherent proposal? > >thanks, > >--larry > >[1] - >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-461?jql=project%20%3D%20KNOX%20 >AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fi >xVersion%20%3D%200.10.0%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC%2C%2 >0created%20ASC > >On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Sumit - >> >> I'm sorry that I missed this email! >> >> I am +1 on you as the release manager. >> >> I think that we should probably identify the driving features for 0.10.0 >> first and then follow up that discussion with whether or not we can make >> this a 1.0.0 but I believe that we would need to ensure two things: >> >> 1. package name clean up >> 2. API, programming model definition - once we go 1.0.0 we have >>different >> requirements for backward compatibility >> >> Are we happy with the ClientDSL model, with various base classes for >> providers, etc? >> >> In terms of features for 0.10.0 - I have a couple in mind: >> >> 1. Centralized LDAP configuration that can be used across multiple >> topologies >> 2. Integration of the hadoop group lookup pluging as an identity >>assertion >> extension (LDAP, unix, etc) >> 3. Group lookup API for KnoxSSO extension >> 4. Logout API for KnoxSSO >> 5. Service description pages - perhaps test pages >> >> Thoughts? >> >> --larry >> >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, sumit gupta <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> In light of the recent 0.9.1 planning discuss thread, I thought I >>> would take the opportunity to kick off a discussion about the next >>> release for Knox. >>> >>> The main discussion points I have so far for this release are: >>> >>> 1. Should this release be the 1.0.0 release for Knox? >>> 2. What are the main features that we would like to target for this >>> release? >>> >>> Once we decide on the scope of the release we can collectively come up >>> with a target release date. I would also be happy to volunteer as the >>> release manager for this release, if there is no objection. >>> >>> In relation to point number 1, I would be interested in seeking >>> opinion on what we would like to do in terms of package names or any >>> other changes to the structure of the source or build. I'm not sure if >>> there is a set of conventions or guidelines for an Apache project to >>> follow when releasing a 1.0.0, so any insight or advice there would >>> also be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Sumit. >>> >> >>
