Okay, then, let's proceed with Joe S. as RM for 0.7.1. On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > >> >> > 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 < > [email protected] > >> > > >> >> > > 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" <[email protected]> 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> >> > > 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 < > [email protected]> > >> >> > 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 < > >> >> > [email protected]> > >> >> > > >> > 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 < > >> [email protected]> > >> >> > > 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 < > >> >> [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 > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> >
