Hello Larry,

Still working on KNOX-752 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-752> -
Websocket support, I am hoping to get a patch out by the end of this week
but not sure.
I second Sumit's suggestion of 10/31, if that works.

Best,
Sandeep


On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Sumit Gupta <sumit.gu...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> 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" <lmc...@apache.org> 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 <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