Folks - I would like to start the process of closing down on 0.10.0. We still have ~16 open JIRAs designated for 0.10.0 and we need to start resolving these or deferring them to 0.11.0.
A number of the KIP-1 related issues have either been resolved or have their usecases awaiting testing from one other other JIRAs - for instance KNOX-536 LDAP authentication against nested OU is likely accomplishable via KNOX-537 - Linux PAM Authentication Module. We just need to test it out. Over the next couple days, I will start moving some issues out to 0.11.0. If you have a patch for something in the wings then you may want to get this attached along with tests to help get it committed in time for the release. I know that we were targeting 9/23 for this release but vacations and other commitments have made it slip. I propose that we try and target 10/23 to have an RC available for testing. Thoughts? thanks! --larry On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be awesome Zac. Let me know when you get close, as promised > before I would be happy to help with the integration into the main line > (build/packing etc). > > We should also create a JIRA other than KNOX-727 to track and discuss > this. There may be one already and I just missed itŠ > > Sumit > > > On 8/10/16, 12:54 AM, "Zac Blanco" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I've been working on the admin page on and off over the last month. If > >we're aiming for read-only then I think I should have something up in a > >week or so. (If I'm only working with the current feature set of the admin > >API). > > > >Definitely doable for 0.10.0. > > > >On Aug 9, 2016 1:40 PM, "Sumit Gupta" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >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. > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >
