9/23 is a good goal for 0.10.0. +1.
On 8/9/16, 4:16 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >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. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
