Awesome. I propose we start building a release candidate off of 40618364e70a966f9c1e425674b53b22b1fb0fb0 soon.
I believe I was the sole volunteer to RM, and unless I hear otherwise, I presume I will be doing so. I'd like to give the commit at least a good 24 hours for some people to bang on it before I start pulling together an RC. On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> wrote: > NIFI-2774 is now complete and merged to both master and 0.x branches. +1 > on a release from the 0.x branch now. > > -- Mike > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I feel that Oleg was really close, and it would be nice for this to be in > > 0.7.1 but it isn't necessary. I did functional testing on the current > state > > of the PR and I am +1 in that respect. > > > > -- Mike > > > > On Oct 10, 2016 9:40 AM, "Tony Kurc" <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> So in reviewing the Jiras, it looks like the two tickets NIFI-2429, > >> NIFI-2874 were merged in and NIFI-2774 is still under discussion. Oleg, > >> Mike, are we feeling like we're close, or would this best fit in the > next > >> 0.x release? > >> > >> Tony > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Thanks Joe Witt, I reviewed that PR and got it into 0.x. > >> > > >> > Since we decided that our next 0.x release will be 0.7.1, I am going > >> > through JIRA and for all Resolved tickets marked against 0.8.0 I am > >> > changing their Fix Version to 0.7.1. Open tickets I will not change. > >> > > >> > -- Mike > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Team, > >> > > > >> > > Mark Payne just opened this one: https://issues.apache.org/ > >> > > jira/browse/NIFI-2874 > >> > > > >> > > It should probably be in this release if able. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks > >> > > Joe > >> > > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > I am reviewing the PR for NIFI-2774 ConsumeJMS and we need someone > >> to > >> > > > review the PR for NIFI-2429 PersistentProvenanceRepository. Once > >> > those > >> > > are > >> > > > complete I think we can start the process to cut 0.7.1. > >> > > > > >> > > > -- Mike > >> > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > >> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> > >> > 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 <b...@jhu.edu > > > >> > > 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 <trk...@gmail.com > > > >> > > 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" < > moser...@gmail.com> > >> > > 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 > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
