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 <sumit.gu...@hortonworks.com>
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 itÅ 
>
> Sumit
>
>
> On 8/10/16, 12:54 AM, "Zac Blanco" <zacdbla...@gmail.com> 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" <sumit.gu...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >9/23 is a good goal for 0.10.0. +1.
> >
> >
> >On 8/9/16, 4:16 PM, "larry mccay" <lmc...@apache.org> 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 <sumit.gu...@hortonworks.com
> >
> >>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" <lmc...@apache.org> 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 <lmc...@apache.org>
> >>>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 <su...@apache.org>
> >>>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.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>>
>
>

Reply via email to