I had an off-list conversation with OlegZ about this recently and he said he planned on trying to tackle this for 1.x timing. Oleg - you have any updates you can share on the JIRA?
It is definitely an important item for those that want to do effective CM which is diff friendly. Is just a step of many we should take to make the whole dev/ops lifecycle for a flow as good as possible. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Edgardo Vega <[email protected]> wrote: > What ever happened to the following from the 6-12 month roadmap that was > posted a while ago? > > Deterministic Template Export > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-826 > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'll take release manager duties for 0.7.0 unless someone else with >> committer status really wants to give it a go. >> >> Right now there are 43 tickets assigned to it. I'll go through and >> punt ones on there that seem stalled or deferrable. Of course, if >> there are any that are particularly important to something you might >> need please do comment to that effect. As we close down on number of >> 0.7 tickets I'll kick off the proceedings. >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI/fixforversion/12335078 >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Ryan H <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Also looking forward to using the TransformJSON processor: >> > >> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/TransformJSON.java >> > >> > Nice choice with JOLT there. >> > >> > We're doing a custom one for jolt transformers for that now. >> > >> > Ryan >> > >> > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ryan H <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Edgardo
