Yes, 1.5 months gets a +1 from me. Should we call it 9/23rd? Metrics and a read-only admin page for that timeframe sound great.
Personally, I would like to see an admin page and some uptake of LDAP improvements before we stamp a 1.0.0. I could be convinced to go before anyone wants to try. :) On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > >>> > >> > >> > >
