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 <[email protected]> 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" <[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. > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > >> > >
