mike - also to clarify based on what you brought up I updated the JIRA description as follows
The following also would be true: 1) Apache NiFi 1.0.0 repositories should work just fine when applied to an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 installation. 2) Repositories made/updated in Apache NiFi 1.1.0 onward would not work in older Apache NiFi releases (such as 1.0.0) On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike - yeah good catch and good question. It does support the old > format. We've always been pretty good about being diligent to allow > folks to upgrade and it honor existing state and in many cases > configurations and it would automatically port them over. What has > always been far more problematic is 'rollback' where people ran on > newer configurations but could not then go back to old framework code. > That is what NIFI-2854 tackles at least as far as the > content/prov/flowfile repositories go. Now, the code and > serialization is done in such a way that older version can simply > ignore what never versions encoded if they don't understand it but > they should be able to continue on. > > I just tried out a 1.0.0 flow with data queued up. Upgraded to a > latest NiFi 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT. Moved the repos over. And it came up > perfectly with all the queue data ready to roll. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> After seeing "Repositories now support rollback" in the release notes and >> reading NIFI-2854 [1], I have a question. >> >> Are repositories created using NiFi 1.0.0 compatible with NiFi 1.1.0 >> software? This is the goal that the ticket seems to indicate with 1.1.0 >> onward, but it's not clear whether 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 is included. >> >> Thanks, >> -- Mike >> >> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2854 >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Wing <jvw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Going through the tickets, it seems like quite a release. A few more >>> things for your list: >>> >>> GenerateFlowFile updated to support literal/expression content and >>> attributes >>> >>> AWS-related: >>> * New processors PutCloudWatchMetric, PutKinesisStream >>> * Updated processors PutS3Object (content type, signer options), ListS3 >>> (performance, versions) >>> * Added support for AWS assume role credentials with proxy >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > matt >>> > >>> > i'll add a wiki page or set of instructions linked from the release >>> notes. >>> > >>> > all, >>> > >>> > walked through the 250 or so JIRAs in the 1.1.0 release and pulled out >>> > highlights. The items noted are as follows. Will likely reduce this >>> > down further for the release notes but wanted to put this out in case >>> > folks have things they think are really important to highlight. >>> > >>> > - Core Improvements: >>> > - Performance: Session Migration >>> > - Stability: Cluster Management >>> > - Developer: Framework supports easy user driven classloader extension >>> > - Expression Language: Now supports base64 and hex encoded values >>> > and Math functions >>> > - Repositories now support rollback >>> > - Faster startup due to more efficient state restoration algorithm >>> > - UX Improvements: >>> > - Visual Backpressure Indicator >>> > - Introduced more colors to better highlight actions and components >>> > - Performance: Validate non-running components >>> > - Provenance graph image can be exported >>> > - Cron Scheduling for Primary node tasks now supported >>> > - Updated versions >>> > - Azure Event Hub 0.9.0 >>> > - Spark 2.0.1 >>> > - Hadoop 2.7.x >>> > - New/Improved Processors >>> > - new Fetch/Put Elastic Search 5.0 >>> > - new ParseCEF to parse CEF formatted logs >>> > - improve ExtractEmail now supports TNEF files >>> > - new Validate CSV >>> > - improved Solr processors now support SSL and Kerberos >>> > - new Websocket client and server processors >>> > - New Utility >>> > - Zookeeper Migrator (move from one zookeeper to another) >>> > - Security >>> > - Restricted Processors >>> > - Site-to-site now supports port forwarding >>> > - Improved Policy Management UX >>> > - Migration Notes: >>> > - Restricted Processors >>> > - Twitter Processor Removed >>> > >>> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> >>> > wrote: >>> > > Is there a good spot for us to put instructions on how to build the >>> > > Twitter processor and/or the Social Media NAR in the meantime? Maybe a >>> > > Wiki page or something simple to say "go to this directory, run this >>> > > Maven command, drop the NAR into your deployment..." ? >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >> Team, >>> > >> >>> > >> We appear to be very close. Andy is working NIFI-3024 but otherwise >>> > >> it is focus on testing. >>> > >> >>> > >> I'm going to prep the RC and release notes now. Unfortunately the >>> > >> twitter changes for json.org will need to remain. Consensus forming >>> > >> on the legal-discuss thread regarding a grace period has been elusive >>> > >> and we're already prepared to make the right steps so we'll just need >>> > >> to take that on by being empathetic to the user base. >>> > >> >>> > >> Thanks >>> > >> Joe >>> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote: >>> > >>> Andy, >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Great to see NIFI-3050 implemented and certainly good news that NiFi >>> > 1.1.0 >>> > >>> is set to include a number of security related improvements. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>>> 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 <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 >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> > >>>
