I'm looking forward to 0.7.. Plenty of awesome features, like SSL with the AMQP processors (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1521)
Thanks! On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok just to wrap up this thread. Will push a couple efforts > 1) Will start pulling together an 0.7 release > 2) Will update the roadmap slide to put in tentative timing/major > elements in the roadmap on the wiki page > > And as for whether 0.7 ends up being the last release of the 0.x line > will just depend on 1.0 release timing and community interest in doing > an 0.8. We don't have to decide that now. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Andy LoPresto <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think Mike’s read on the published guidelines is correct, but I agree > with > > Joe that if we release 0.7 two weeks before 1.0, feature development > that is > > merged after 0.7 does not need to be backported. Maybe this is something > we > > should clarify on the wiki once we reach a consensus. > > > > > > Andy LoPresto > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > > > On May 17, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mike > > > > I agree with the letter of the reading so this thread is to discuss > > the spirit of it and how to best apply it to our situation and > > community now. Whether it is 'just before' or 'just after' or 'same > > time' I think it is within the intent. I just want us to be clear > > what it is. It is extra work to ensure each PR is applied to both > > lines and extra work increases contributor and reviewer burden so we > > should be mindful of that as it is a dragging force. We also need to > > keep in mind that with 1.x we have Java 8 as a minimum and so there > > are cases which will not apply to both and we don't want folks to > > avoid using Java 8 features just so it can apply to both. > > > > My preference is that we have 0.7 as the last planned feature release > > in 0.x and with that in mind we need to choose to have it be a bit > > before, a bit after, or at the same time as the 1.x release. I > > personally am comfortable with what I proposed for 0.7 vs 1.0 timing > > but I am fine if the consensus is to release the last 0.x and 1.0 at > > the same time. Just hoping to avoid needing to have another feature > > release on 0.x after 0.7 other than some special request that might > > come up later (which is also discussed in the support doc). > > > > I also agree the release process for 1.0 will be significant as it > > will include important new features. Definitely need folks testing > > out and providing feedback on the features early and often. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Michael Moser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > The way I read the release support document, I don't think the feature > > cut-off for the 0.x branch happens when we confirm a release date for > 1.0, > > I think it occurs once we actually release 1.0. Maybe the cut-off can > > happen once we declare the first 1.0 release candidate. I'm sure we will > > spend significant time doing testing and bug fixes on 1.0 release > > candidates. If I recall, we spent 2 weeks on 0.6.1 release candidates. > > > > -- Mike > > > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I believe that is right Andy. The support guide articulates that we > > could do a feature release upon request if there was some specific > > need a community member had but that otherwise the only releases on an > > older line still supported would be focused on security/data loss type > > items. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Andy LoPresto <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > This schedule seems appropriate to me. Once 0.7.0 is released and we > > > > confirm > > > > the release date for 1.0, feature development is completely targeted to > > > > 1.0, > > > > correct? Security and data loss bug fixes would still be backported, but > > > > new > > > > features would not. > > > > Andy LoPresto > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > > > On May 17, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok - i'm good with an 0.7 release too and think it is a good idea. I > > am happy to RM the release. > > > > I'd like to select a date at which we're happy to call the 0.x line > > then feature complete which means 0.7 would be the last feature > > bearing 0.x release and from then on it would be bug fixes only > > consistent withe support model. To do that I think we should feel > > reasonably confident that the 1.x release is close. So let's say we > > did an 0.7 release early June - say first week of June. I'd like us > > to say then that 1.x is targeted to early July. > > > > If this seems like a reasonable path I'll start filling out the > > tragically never updated roadmap wiki page [1] with the 0.7 target, > > 1.x target, and put some placeholder/tentatives for the 1.1 and beyond > > targets. Will wait for additional inputs. > > > > [1] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58851850 > > > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Oleg Zhurakousky > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Agreed! I would like to see 0.7 within 2-3 weeks as there are a lot of > > improvements and new features/components in it already, and would like to > > give it some miles before 1.0. > > > > Oleg > > > > On May 17, 2016, at 4:02 PM, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm definitely in favor of releasing 0.7.0, but I don't think we need be > > rigid about the schedule. If delaying 0.7.0 a few weeks (2-4?) helps > > > > pace > > > > us towards a 1.0 in mid- to late-Summer, that seems reasonable to me. Do > > we believe that is still a likely target? > > > > Thanks, > > > > James > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Team, > > > > Want to start zeroing in on the details of the next releases. We had > > a good set of discussions around this back in January and have since > > been executing along this general path [1]. > > > > On the 0.x line the next release would be 0.7.0. There does appear to > > be a lot of useful improvements/features/fixes there now and it is > > time to do a release according to our general 6-8 week approach. > > However, given all the effort going into 1.x I'd like to get a sense > > of what the community preference is. > > > > On the 1.0 line the release is coming into focus. Some things have > > moved into 1.x and some things look like they'd slide to the right of > > 1.x as is to be expected. For example distributed durability (HA > > Data) looks like a good thing to do post 1.0 given the substantive > > changes present from the new HA clustering approach and multi-tenant > > authorization. I'd also like to dive in and liberally apply Apache > > Yetus annotations [2] to all the things so we can be really explicit > > about what parts we can more freely evolve going forward. We've been > > a bit awkwardly hamstrung thus far without these so they should help > > greatly to better convey intent. > > > > For those really interested in things coming in the 1.0 release please > > take a look through the JIRAs currently there and provide comments on > > what is important to you, what you'd like to see moved out, in, etc.. > > [3]. At this point there are still a lot of things which will likely > > need to move out to allow the release to occur in a timely fashion. > > > > Also, keep in mind our stated release line/support model as found here > > > > [4]. > > > > > > [1] > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > [2] > > > > > https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.2.1/audience-annotations-apidocs/ > > > > > > [3] > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1887?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI > > > > > > [4] > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Git+Branching+and+Release+Line+Management > > > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > >
