Hey folks -

Those fixes would be great to get into this release as well.
10/31 is certainly reasonable.

Let's go with that for now.

thanks,

--larry

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Sandeep More <moresand...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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