Yes, it's on my list for 1.0 Oleg
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 08:33, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <edgardo.v...@gmail.com> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 <rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com> >>> 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 <rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 <alopre...@apache.org> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> alopre...@apache.org >>>>>>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 17, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 <moser...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> >>> 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 <alopre...@apache.org >>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> alopre...@apache.org >>>>>>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 17, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 >>>>>>> <ozhurakou...@hortonworks.com> 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 <jvw...@gmail.com> 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 <joew...@apache.org> >>> 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 >
