Awesome. Your prompt and detailed feedback is very much appreciated!
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63 > c15269eea8). > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> 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 > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> > >>> > > >>> >
