It is also my belief that we have not had anyone but PMC members perform the release process. Certainly no objections here and, as mentioned in the link, still requires the same PMC validation.
I've seen this occur in some other ASF projects as well and certainly is beneficial to our community to have more people with the experience. On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 20:18 Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone object to Joe Skora being release manager for 0.7.1? Based on > this [1] I don't see any reason he shouldn't be able to. I've offered out > of band to assist. > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#release_manager > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Well I'm certainly willing to not do it! That being said, I don't know > > that we've had a non-PMC member do the job of RM'ing (I tried to find > logs > > of it all, and failed). > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Joe Skora <jsk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
