So, sounds like we have enough support to go ahead. How are we feeling about what our timeline should be on this?
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:14 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to an 0.7.1 with the bugs that have been addressed already. > Even bigger +1 to Tony volunteering as RM! > > Thanks > Joe > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Brandon DeVries <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's > question > > to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth fixing > > in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about: > > > > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance() > > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec > > > > On the other, there are some I would like to see, even if its in 0.7.2 or > > 0.8.0, e.g.: > > > > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors > > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption > > > > But, there are a number of things that are currently committed (or have > > patch available) that I'd like to see available as soon as possible. So > > rather than wait for more "nice to haves", I'd rather address the > immediate > > needs... Immediately. > > > > Brandon > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:15 PM Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more 0.x > >> releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier, > and > >> it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix > release of > >> we collectively would like to put one together. > >> > >> While the tickets with work to do on them would be great to have fixed, > I > >> personally would rather see a release with some fixes and a couple known > >> issues than holding off for "perfection", especially as a lot of our > effort > >> is on 1.x. Are you asking if effort would be wasted if patches were > >> developed for the 0.x issues? > >> > >> Fwiw, I certainly could do the RM work if there is interest/demand > signal > >> for in another 0.x. > >> > >> On Sep 27, 2016 5:28 PM, "Michael Moser" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > All, > >> > > >> > I would like to start the discussion of making the next official > release > >> of > >> > the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since > it > >> > seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0 > was > >> > released. > >> > > >> > The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have been > completed > >> > in the 0.x branch. There are 33 tickets in this list that are > resolved. > >> > > >> > Here is a list of JIRA tickets that are not yet complete that we need > to > >> > decide what to do with. > >> > > >> > Patch Available > >> > NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository > >> > NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS > >> > > >> > Open against 0.7.0 > >> > NIFI-2383 ListFiles > >> > NIFI-2433 "Primary Node Only" processors (fixed in master but this > ticket > >> > is for 0.x) > >> > NIFI-2798 Zookeeper security upgrade > >> > NIFI-2801 Kafka processors documentation > >> > > >> > Other high priority bugs not yet specifically targeted to the 0.x > branch, > >> > should we try to work these? > >> > NIFI-1696 Event Driven processors > >> > NIFI-1912 PutEmail content-type > >> > NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux service spec > >> > NIFI-2409 StoreKiteInDataset invalid URI > >> > NIFI-2562 PutHDFS data corruption > >> > NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance() > >> > > >> > -- Mike > >> > > >> > [1] - > >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2801?jql= > >> > project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20in%20%280.7.1%2C%200.8.0%29 > >> > > >> >
