All - I have spent some time deferring JIRAs out to 0.11.0 that I thought were:
a. Just not going to make it in time b. More of a feature when we need a bug fix release now and don't want to flood it with many new features If you feel that you have an issue in the 0.10.0 list that can be deferred please speak up and we will move it out to 0.11.0 as well. If I've moved an issue out that you feel we need to get into 0.10.0 and think can be reasonably ready in time then also speak up and we can pull it back in. thanks, --larry On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:22 PM, larry mccay <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[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. >> > >> >>> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
