I'm willing take a try at RM or work with someone to understand it in the
future.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> > >> > > >> > >> >
> > >> > > >> > >>
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to