As long as someone has commit privileges they can certainly step up to take on release management. The only special bit in a release beyond commit privileges is needing sufficient binding votes. Thanks Joe for offering to take that on.
Joe On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >>
