Joe, As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning) should address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that tomorrow. That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin. Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the remaining tickets. -Bryan On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > Bryan > > How are things looking for what you updated on? The nar plugin of > course is out. > > We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to > make sure we're closing in. I'll start doing the JIRA whipping. > > Thanks > JOe > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just a quick update on this discussion... > > > > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component > > versioning work [1]. > > > > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven > > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2]. > > > > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties > > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow. > > > > -Bryan > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585 > > [2] > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI > > > > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone > feature. > >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> James > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> James, > >>> > >>> No problem :) > >>> > >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy... > >>> > >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs > >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved > >>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working > >>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs > >>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if > >>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done > >>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted > >>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for > >>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it. > >>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work > >>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide > >>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs. > >>> > >>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work... > >>> > >>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the > >>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no > >>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being > >>> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for > >>> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries, > >>> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make > >>> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older > >>> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not > >>> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin, > >>> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run > >>> two versions of that NAR at the same time. > >>> > >>> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if > >>> anyone is interested. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Bryan > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2! > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard > work. > >>> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :) > >>> >> > >>> >> So the alternatives are: > >>> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning > >>> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning > >>> >> > >>> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component > versioning > >>> >> work > >>> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible? Or is > the > >>> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0? > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks, > >>> >> > >>> >> James > >>> >> > >>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is > >>> >>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and > >>> >>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality > is > >>> >>> very close to being done and I think we should get this into the > 1.2.0 > >>> >>> release. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to > >>> >>> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and > >>> >>> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board > with > >>> >>> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new > >>> >>> plugin which would be soon. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380 > >>> >>> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the > >>> >>>> original > >>> >>>> intent of Joe's post? "Is there any reason folks can think of to > hold > >>> >>> > >>> >>> off > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> on a 1.2.0 release?" > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> Andy, > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I > think > >>> >>> > >>> >>> it's > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> important to keep going. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a > patch > >>> >>>>> available to see which state it returned to. > >>> >>>>> It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal. > >>> >>>>> Though > >>> >>>>> we could certainly have a process > >>> >>>>> by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling > the > >>> >>> > >>> >>> patch. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning > of > >>> "In > >>> >>>>> Review." Let's say that you submit a > >>> >>>>> patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some > work - > >>> >>>>> let's say there's an issue with licensing > >>> >>>>> not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I > no > >>> >>> > >>> >>> longer > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> consider the patch that you provided > >>> >>>>> to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and > you > >>> will > >>> >>>>> need to submit a new patch. I guess > >>> >>>>> that I view a patch as being an immutable entity. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto <[email protected] > >>> >>> > >>> >>> <mailto:a > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> [email protected]>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Mark, > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense > and it > >>> >>>>> explains why you approach the process the way you do. I have a > >>> slightly > >>> >>>>> different personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read > it to > >>> >>> > >>> >>> mean > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> “the person responsible for this Jira has contributed code they > feel > >>> >>> > >>> >>> solves > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> the issue.” A review will (hopefully) determine if that > assertion is > >>> >>>>> correct and complete. I think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint > is > >>> >>> > >>> >>> simply > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” > but I > >>> >>> > >>> >>> see > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> “In Review” as a potentially iterative process — it could be on > the > >>> >>> > >>> >>> second > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> pass of the contributor responding to comments, but it’s still > “In > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Review” > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> in my eyes. I don’t know that the granularity of Jira supports > the > >>> >>> > >>> >>> specific > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> workflow states of “been reviewed once but not complete/accepted > >>> yet”. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to > >>> “Open”, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> don’t see the value because that obfuscates the difference > between a > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Jira > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> that hasn’t even been touched and one that has 90% of the code > done. > >>> I > >>> >>>>> agree we should make the RM’s job easier, but I also think it > doesn’t > >>> >>> > >>> >>> help > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> the visibility for reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when > >>> there > >>> >>> > >>> >>> is > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> the potential for that patch to be ready for merge in a very > short > >>> >>> > >>> >>> amount > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> of time. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on > >>> shared > >>> >>>>> definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re > >>> >>> > >>> >>> talking > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> about it. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto > >>> >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > >>> >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D > EF69 > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:m > >>> >>>>> [email protected]>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Andy, > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make > sense > >>> to > >>> >>>>> leave the JIRA in "Patch Available" state > >>> >>>>> as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the > >>> patch > >>> >>> > >>> >>> is > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for > >>> >>>>> Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." > So if > >>> >>>>> minor fixes are needed, then I believe > >>> >>>>> it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or > not) > >>> >>>>> are > >>> >>>>> made and the PR updated, then the > >>> >>>>> PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to > "Patch > >>> >>>>> Available" again. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means > "Awaiting > >>> >>>>> Review" or "In Review." If it is awaiting > >>> >>>>> changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should > Cancel > >>> >>>>> Patch. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Do you or others have differing views on the meaning of "Patch > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Available"? > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Thanks > >>> >>>>> -Mark > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto <[email protected] > >>> >>> > >>> >>> <mailto:a > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Mark, > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version > at the > >>> >>> > >>> >>> time > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> the PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the > contributor > >>> >>>>> is > >>> >>>>> aware of this process). I think it’s better than waiting for the > >>> merge, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> as > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I proposed before. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I agree that the reviewer is responsible for keeping the Jira > updated > >>> >>>>> in > >>> >>>>> line with their work. I don’t know if I am on the same page as > you > >>> for > >>> >>>>> “Cancel Patch” if the PR needs changes; sometimes these are minor > >>> fixes > >>> >>> > >>> >>> or > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> just looking for clarification from the contributor, and I don’t > >>> think > >>> >>> > >>> >>> that > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> warrants canceling the availability of the patch. If they are > major > >>> >>>>> architectural changes, then that makes more sense to me. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto > >>> >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:alo > >>> >>>>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > >>> ><mailto: > >>> >>>>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D > EF69 > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mark Payne <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:m > >>> >>>>> [email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set a Fix Version on > JIRA's, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> that > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> some PR's will be lost > >>> >>>>> or stalled. I rarely go to github and start looking through the > PRs. > >>> >>>>> Instead, I go to JIRA and look > >>> >>>>> at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the next release. Then > I'll > >>> go > >>> >>>>> and review JIRA's that are > >>> >>>>> in a state of "Patch Available." Even then I often come across > many > >>> >>>>> PR's > >>> >>>>> that have already been > >>> >>>>> reviewed by one or more other committers and are awaiting > updates. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> So I propose that we address this slightly differently. I believe > >>> that > >>> >>> > >>> >>> we > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> should assign a Fix Version to > >>> >>>>> a JIRA whenever a PR is submitted. Then, whenever a committer > >>> reviews a > >>> >>>>> PR, he/she should be > >>> >>>>> responsible for updating the JIRA. If the PR is merged then the > JIRA > >>> >>>>> should be resolved as Fixed. > >>> >>>>> But if the PR is not merged because some changes are needed, the > >>> >>> > >>> >>> reviewer > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> should then go back to > >>> >>>>> the JIRA and click 'Cancel Patch'. We are typically very good > about > >>> >>>>> resolving as fixed once a PR is > >>> >>>>> merged, but we don't typically cancel the patch otherwise. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> If we followed this workflow, then a Release Manager (or anyone > else) > >>> >>> > >>> >>> can > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> easily see which tickets > >>> >>>>> need to be reviewed before a release happens and which ones can > be > >>> >>> > >>> >>> pushed > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> out because they > >>> >>>>> are not ready (even if a PR has been posted). It also makes it > much > >>> >>> > >>> >>> easier > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> for reviewers to quickly > >>> >>>>> know which tickets are awaiting review. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Thoughts? > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> -Mark > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Andy LoPresto < > >>> [email protected]< > >>> >>>>> mailto:[email protected]><mailto: > [email protected] > >>> >> > >>> >>>>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically setting > fix > >>> >>>>> versions and then not meeting them, I second Joe's point about it > >>> >>> > >>> >>> holding > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> up releases. Better to get the PR out, reviewed, and merged > *before* > >>> >>>>> setting the fix version in my opinion. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto > >>> >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]><mailto:alo > >>> >>>>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected] > >>> ><mailto: > >>> >>>>> [email protected]> > >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D > EF69 > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt <[email protected]<mailto: > joe > >>> >>>>> [email protected]>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Peter, > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open. But > the > >>> >>>>> way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless > they > >>> >>>>> really should block a release without resolution or if due to > some > >>> >>>>> roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that > is > >>> >>>>> tied to a release. Otherwise, for the many things which pop up > >>> >>>>> throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided. That > is to > >>> >>>>> say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the > act of > >>> >>>>> merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> From the release management point of view: > >>> >>>>> This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really > >>> >>>>> difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a > release as > >>> >>>>> pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear > as > >>> >>>>> though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly > >>> >>>>> releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone > >>> >>>>> would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten > the PR > >>> >>>>> and/or review traction necessary. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> From the contributor point of view: > >>> >>>>> If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to > end > >>> >>>>> up in a release. But being an RTC community we need and want > peer > >>> >>>>> review before the code is submitted. Some contributions are > frankly > >>> >>>>> hard to get peer review on or simply take time for someone to > >>> >>>>> volunteer to do. PRs which are difficult to test, lack testing, > are > >>> >>>>> related to systems or environments which are not easily > replicated, > >>> >>>>> etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review for. Also, the > >>> >>>>> community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes the hygiene of a > >>> given > >>> >>>>> PR isn't great. So our 'patch available' and 'open PR' count > ticks > >>> >>>>> up. We need reviews/feedback as much as we need contributions > so it > >>> >>>>> is important for folks that want those contributions in to build > >>> >>>>> meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions. This > helps > >>> >>>>> build a network of contributors/reviewers and improves the > timeliness > >>> >>>>> of reviews. Long story short here is that because at times PRs > can > >>> >>>>> sit too long sometimes people put a fix version on the JIRA so it > >>> acts > >>> >>>>> as a sort of 'gating function' on the release. This I am saying > is > >>> >>>>> the practice that should not occur (given the thoughts above). > We > >>> >>>>> should instead take the issue of how to more effectively > >>> >>>>> triage/review/provide feedback/and manage expectations for > >>> >>>>> contributions so contributors don't feel like their stuff will > just > >>> >>>>> sit forever. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Does that make sense and seem fair? > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Thanks > >>> >>>>> Joe > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Peter Wicks (pwicks) < > >>> >>> > >>> >>> [email protected] > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> Just for clarification, "We really need to avoid the practice of > >>> >>>>> setting > >>> >>>>> fix versions without traction", would mean don't set a version > number > >>> >>> > >>> >>> until > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> after we've submitted a PR? Until after the PR has been closed? > >>> Other? > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Thanks, > >>> >>>>> Peter > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>> >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[email protected]] > >>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM > >>> >>>>> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > >>> >>>>> Subject: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release? > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> team, > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On the users lists we had an ask of when we are planning to cut a > >>> >>>>> 1.2.0 release. And someone else asked me recently off-list. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> There are 45 open JIRAs tagged to it as of now. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > >>> >>>>> > 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D% > >>> >>>>> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20DESC > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I'd be favorable to going through and seeing if we can start the > >>> >>>>> motions > >>> >>>>> for a 1.2.0 release and which are ones we can wait for and which > we > >>> >>> > >>> >>> should > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> have in 1.2.0 for sure. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off on a 1.2.0 > >>> release? > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> A non trivial number of the JIRAs are for things which have or > do not > >>> >>> > >>> >>> have > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> PRs but have no review traction. We really need to avoid the > >>> practice > >>> >>> > >>> >>> of > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> setting fix versions without traction on this as otherwise it > holds > >>> up > >>> >>> > >>> >>> the > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> releases. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Thanks > >>> >>>>> Joe > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> -- > >>> >>>> I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have > plenty. > >>> >>>> I > >>> >>>> have learned the secret of being content in any and every > situation, > >>> >>>> whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. > I > >>> can > >>> >>> > >>> >>> do > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> all this through him who gives me strength. *-Philippians > 4:12-13* > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
