I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put their own code in without sign off.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky < [email protected]> wrote: > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a consensus > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ricky, > > > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push! :-) > > > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that > > licensing is fully accounted for. As long as you have a good plus one > > and we're sure its good let's push. Happy to work with you on it. > > > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release. Do you have > > privileges for that already? > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for > adding a > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been > using > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues, > so it > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the > >> release on the 19th. > >> > >> > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Team, > >>> > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets. I might have > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points: > >>> > >>> Version 0.4.0 > >>> > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include: > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files. > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms > >>> based on username/password > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors. > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing > >>> with 1000s of objects > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a > >>> given component > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors > >>> > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which > >>> are unresolved. I reassigned many but still many remain. Please do a > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off > >>> of 040. > >>> > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th. I suggest we try to target Nov 19th > >>> then for 0.4.0. There is already quite a lot in this and so I think > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward. > >>> > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to > >>> understand likely target dates for completion. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Joe > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide. But the main > idea > >>> is > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the > RC. > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people > power to > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks > should > >>>> do. We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on > >>> with > >>>> this model. The more CI we can get established the better we can do. > >>> But > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases. > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Joe, > >>>>> > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a > defects > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases? In other words, what is > the > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and > >>> production > >>>>> use? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> Rick > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM > >>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release? > >>>>> > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move > >>>>> towards an RC. It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive > >>> for 6 > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view. > >>>>> > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for > discussion > >>>>> there. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks > >>>>> Joe > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know. Look forward to seeing the ticket. If > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome > though > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> Joe > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> All, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM. It manifests as the "spinning > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI. Thread and heap dumps > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some > >>>>>>> small quick-win > >>>>>> changes > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the > >>>>>>> community. > >>>>>> I > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>>> -- Mike > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while. Am happy to take it. We need to > >>>>>>>> scrub > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ... > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Sean > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ricky Saltzer > >> http://www.cloudera.com > > >
