Hi Larry, Thanks for bringing the focus back to the 0.10.0 release and looking to close things down. I think the LDAP improvements are great and need to get released soon. We also have had a fix regarding an encoding regression that would be good to get in release, KNOX-754 (it could also be in a 0.9.2 though).
As for the date, I would recommend another week out, 10/31 maybe? I would hope we can get KNOX-752 in as well if we can allow for some more time. Sumit. On 10/17/16, 7:14 AM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: >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. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>
