For 1198 and 1203 those should be included. Those are the sorts of things we're going to be finding/fixing in the testing phase anyway. Also, since they're impacting an as of yet unreleased feature we really need the multiple eyes on testing which is how these were found.
For NIFI-655 why not simply document that it is an untested configuration and move forward? Thanks Joe On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Matt Gilman <[email protected]> wrote: > These tickets [1][2] address the incorrect validation errors we were seeing > for processors that include the Input Required annotation. These were bugs > that slipped through the NIFI-810 the review. Would be good to include if > possible but I understand we need to draw the line somewhere. > > As for NIFI-655, I've been struggling getting an LDAP server stood up that > uses 2 way SSL. Hopefully we can get that squared away soon and wrap this one > up. :) > > Matt > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1198 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1203 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Given the testing to NIFI-1192 and review of NIFI-631 done already >> both are lower risk I think. >> >> NIFI-1107 seems very useful and helpful but we do need to be careful >> given that we know this one is already in use and this is a >> substantive change. >> >> If there are folks that can dig into review/testing of NIFI-1107 that >> would be great. Waiting for word on NIFI-655 readiness then I think >> we should go cold and just focus on testing an RC. >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Agreed. I know there has already been a good deal of discussion about >>> design on all these. >>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Aldrin Piri <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> No qualms here. If they look good to go while the work and testing >>>> surrounding NIFI-655 wraps up, they might as well be included. Would not >>>> want to delay the release should any of these become protracted in terms of >>>> iterations. >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> I was reviewing github PRs and wondering whether anyone objected to >>>>> slipping a couple that look like they're very close into 0.4.0. >>>>> >>>>> NIFI-1192 (#131) >>>>> NIFI-631 (#113) >>>>> NIFI-1107 (#192) >>>>> >>>>> I should have some review cycles tonight. Lots of comments on them all, >>>> and >>>>> have good "momentum". >>>>> >>>>> Tony >>>>
