Just updating this thread that NIFI-3050 [1] and NIFI-3051 [2] have been added to my plate for this release. Coordinated with Joe Witt and they should both be included.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3050 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3051 Andy LoPresto alopre...@apache.org alopresto.apa...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Team > > There is a thread on apache legal-discuss that might allow for a > graceperiod of continued usage of the json library. Am going to keep > a close eye on this and if VP Legal approves we'll be able to keep the > twitter processors in which is definitely a good thing. Will advise > > Thanks > Joe > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've noticed an issue with the per-instance class loading capability >> introduced in NIFI-2909 where the additional classpath resources can get >> incorrectly removed from the class loader. >> >> I was able to reproduced this with a unit test and have a fix ready. I >> believe this is important and needs to go in for the 1.1 release, going to >> re-open NIFI-2909 and submit a PR shortly. >> >> -Bryan >> >> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have two items that I would like to wrap up prior to creating an RC for >>> 1.1.0. NIFI-2949 addresses some UX issues around Remote Process Group port >>> configuration. The work is already completed and I will be reviewing it >>> this today. Additionally, following recent interest on the mailing list, >>> I'd like to knock out NIFI-3020. This will allow an admin to configure a >>> strategy for user identity when logging in via LDAP. Specifically, it will >>> support usage of the DN (the default and current implementation) as well as >>> the username the user logged in as. I should be able to have a PR up for >>> this work later today. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Matt >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2949 >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3020 >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The code is within the twitter4j library itself. I filed a request to >>>> twitter4jg. The most likely case is we will need to submit a PR to them. >>>> However, I don't see this as something that should delay the release. We >>>> can provide instructions for folks wanting to use the processor during >>> the >>>> time we cannot make it available in a convenient manner. I will provide >>> a >>>> meaningful comment about this in release notes and pointers on what folks >>>> can do in the meantime. >>>> >>>> On Nov 15, 2016 7:41 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <alopre...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I understand there was a discussion thread within the NiFi community >>> for >>>>> this as well and I missed responding to that at that time. It just >>> seems >>>> to >>>>> me like JSON processing is necessary for GetTwitter, which is >>> incredibly >>>>> useful for demonstrating NiFi’s ability to read from a high volume >>> stream >>>>> out of the box. With NIFI-3019 (Remove GetTwitter from default build), >>> is >>>>> there any related effort to substitute an acceptable replacement JSON >>>>> library to restore this functionality? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019 >>>>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto >>>>> alopre...@apache.org >>>>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com <alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>* >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and >>>>> NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we >>>>> investigated some alternate TLS config options for the new version of >>> the >>>>> client library. >>>>> >>>>> Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using >>>>> Johnzon [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the >>> mailing >>>>> list thread? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://johnzon.apache.org/ >>>>> [2] https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package- >>>> summary.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto >>>>> alopre...@apache.org >>>>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com <alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>* >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Team >>>>> >>>>> Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to >>>>> 1.1.0. Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including >>>> work >>>>> to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had. The most >>> notable >>>>> impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav >>> new >>>>> nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default >>>>> build. It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it >>>> but >>>>> we won't distribute binaries that have it. >>>>> >>>>> I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items. >>>>> >>>>> I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone >>>>> have any outstanding items? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ryan >>>>> >>>>> Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and >>>>> start a vote in the next week or two at most. >>>>> >>>>> I'm going through the tickets again now. There is also a new issue of >>>>> the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and >>>>> becoming Category-X. Am looking into that now. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <ryan.wa...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1? >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 >>>>> release. There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are >>>>> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is >>>>> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with >>>>> what makes it in and keep working it down. So let's please shoot for >>>>> a couple weeks from now. If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0. Let's >>>>> avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion. >>>>> Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be >>>>> able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the >>>>> list grow. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> joe >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <edgardo.v...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Joe, >>>>> >>>>> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an >>>>> >>>>> example. >>>>> >>>>> All >>>>> >>>>> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo, >>>>> >>>>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that >>>>> through review. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega < >>>>> >>>>> edgardo.v...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal >>>>> >>>>> was >>>>> >>>>> try >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the >>>>> >>>>> important >>>>> >>>>> bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the >>>>> >>>>> release >>>>> >>>>> notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is >>>>> >>>>> really >>>>> >>>>> huge. >>>>> >>>>> I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only >>>>> >>>>> trying to >>>>> >>>>> strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do >>>>> >>>>> better. >>>>> >>>>> I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and >>>>> >>>>> make >>>>> >>>>> it >>>>> >>>>> better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great >>>>> >>>>> this >>>>> >>>>> community is. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to >>>>> >>>>> strengthen >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it >>>>> >>>>> was >>>>> >>>>> reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the >>>>> >>>>> participation >>>>> >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>> the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't >>>>> >>>>> want >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> see that happen here. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a >>>>> >>>>> committer I >>>>> >>>>> can >>>>> >>>>> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having >>>>> >>>>> already >>>>> >>>>> taken many of the steps you suggest. >>>>> >>>>> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should >>>>> >>>>> not be >>>>> >>>>> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most >>>>> >>>>> of us >>>>> >>>>> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our >>>>> >>>>> peers >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions. >>>>> >>>>> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long >>>>> >>>>> time >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> we are working to improve this pipeline. >>>>> >>>>> It was therefore no coincidence that I browsed most of the PRs >>>>> >>>>> performing >>>>> >>>>> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the >>>>> >>>>> current >>>>> >>>>> code base. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of >>>>> >>>>> stalled >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8). >>>>> >>>>> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master >>>>> >>>>> contain a >>>>> >>>>> series >>>>> >>>>> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit >>>>> >>>>> from >>>>> >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>> release sooner rather than later. >>>>> >>>>> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is >>>>> >>>>> good to >>>>> >>>>> have you here. >>>>> >>>>> Andre >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega < >>>>> >>>>> edgardo.v...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are >>>>> >>>>> currently >>>>> >>>>> open. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I >>>>> >>>>> believe >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> be >>>>> >>>>> extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could >>>>> >>>>> be >>>>> >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>> forcing >>>>> >>>>> function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more >>>>> >>>>> willing >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able >>>>> >>>>> accepted >>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>> merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in >>>>> >>>>> progress >>>>> >>>>> is a >>>>> >>>>> great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged >>>>> >>>>> with >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>>> There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers >>>>> >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> I >>>>> >>>>> found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't >>>>> >>>>> think I >>>>> >>>>> would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get >>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>> sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule >>>>> >>>>> about >>>>> >>>>> closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over >>>>> >>>>> by a >>>>> >>>>> core >>>>> >>>>> contributor if they think it worthwhile. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was >>>>> >>>>> quick >>>>> >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>> review, provided great comments, testing, and even some >>>>> >>>>> additional >>>>> >>>>> code. >>>>> >>>>> It >>>>> >>>>> was a great PR experience. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall < >>>>> >>>>> joeperciv...@yahoo.com <javascript:;>. >>>>> >>>>> invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull >>>>> >>>>> Requests >>>>> >>>>> that >>>>> >>>>> are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 >>>>> >>>>> version. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR >>>>> >>>>> count) >>>>> >>>>> should >>>>> >>>>> be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing >>>>> >>>>> takes a >>>>> >>>>> significant amount of time from both the reviewer and >>>>> >>>>> contributor. >>>>> >>>>> In >>>>> >>>>> order >>>>> >>>>> to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a >>>>> >>>>> couple >>>>> >>>>> days. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also there has already been a lot of great new features and >>>>> >>>>> bug >>>>> >>>>> fixes >>>>> >>>>> contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth >>>>> >>>>> holding up >>>>> >>>>> a >>>>> >>>>> 1.1.0 >>>>> >>>>> release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an >>>>> >>>>> added >>>>> >>>>> bonus >>>>> >>>>> though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs >>>>> >>>>> already >>>>> >>>>> open >>>>> >>>>> so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> - - - - - - >>>>> Joseph Percivall >>>>> linkedin.com/in/Percivall >>>>> e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com <javascript:;> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt < >>>>> >>>>> joe.w...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are less than 30 right now. Many of the roughly 90+ >>>>> >>>>> JIRAs >>>>> >>>>> opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed >>>>> >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> just >>>>> >>>>> had fix versions removed. >>>>> >>>>> We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to >>>>> >>>>> deal >>>>> >>>>> with >>>>> >>>>> reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega < >>>>> >>>>> edgardo.v...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Joe, >>>>> >>>>> There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over >>>>> >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> next >>>>> >>>>> bunch >>>>> >>>>> of >>>>> >>>>> days to get them closed and then cut the release after that. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt < >>>>> >>>>> joe.w...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features. I >>>>> >>>>> would >>>>> >>>>> like >>>>> >>>>> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much >>>>> >>>>> based >>>>> >>>>> on >>>>> >>>>> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new >>>>> >>>>> Apache >>>>> >>>>> NiFi >>>>> >>>>> 1.2.0 version. We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 >>>>> >>>>> week >>>>> >>>>> release >>>>> >>>>> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi >>>>> >>>>> 1.2.0 >>>>> >>>>> this >>>>> >>>>> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on >>>>> >>>>> this. In >>>>> >>>>> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be >>>>> >>>>> seeing a >>>>> >>>>> lot >>>>> >>>>> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc < >>>>> >>>>> trk...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing >>>>> >>>>> for >>>>> >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the >>>>> >>>>> master >>>>> >>>>> line >>>>> >>>>> now >>>>> >>>>> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a >>>>> >>>>> release. >>>>> >>>>> There >>>>> >>>>> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which >>>>> >>>>> are >>>>> >>>>> open. >>>>> >>>>> I'm >>>>> >>>>> going to go through them and remove fix versions where >>>>> >>>>> appropriate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if >>>>> >>>>> someone >>>>> >>>>> else >>>>> >>>>> would like to take that on please advise. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Edgardo >>>>> >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
