Mike You are certainly more than welcome to give the RM role a go and it is very appreciated particularly on 0.x where it isn't as easy to put attention/cycles.
Thanks Joe On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Michael Moser <[email protected]> wrote: > All, > > I have started going through JIRA and identifying remaining issues against > the 0.x branch to prepare for a release, and I've worked a couple of the > JSON.org Cat-x license issues on that branch. > > I would like to volunteer to be release manager for a 0.7.3 release, if you > will let me try. ;-) > > -- Mike > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Joe Skora <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sorry for the confusion regarding 1.0.0-BETA vs 1.0.0, my bad. >> >> As for stability, I don't mean build and test stability but real world >> stability feedback that has led to various repository fixes including the >> 1.x line transition to the schema based provenance and newly refactored >> provenance repository. >> >> Again, apologies for the beta confusion. >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Joe >> > >> > 1.0.0 was not a beta release. >> > >> > 1.0.0-beta was a beta release. >> > >> > The intent of the language was we support the old major line for one year >> > once there is a major release. It is of course imperative to respect >> that >> > folks cannot migrate as quickly as we would always like. But this sort >> of >> > concern is precisely why we have such a document. >> > >> > I propose we clarify the language to clearly and simply state that once a >> > new major release line release has occurred we will support the old >> release >> > line for up to one year. This does not distinguish between minor or >> > incremental. There is already language for that. >> > >> > The stability comment is an unclear line to debate. The act of voting >> on a >> > release is the point at which the community agrees and asserts the >> fitness >> > of a release. We have no other open and clear mechanism for doing so. >> > >> > I think the question of whether an 0.8 can happen is no longer tied to >> the >> > recent portions of this thread. It would need am RM and vote. >> > >> > As I mentioned the other day I'll go ahead and update the versioning >> > guidance barring any objection or alternative proposal. I'll wait >> another >> > day or so in case you would like to propose alternative language for the >> > commitment we make as a community to our users and ourselves. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Joe >> > >> > On Feb 27, 2017 9:42 AM, "Joe Skora" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > I think there's a couple considerations related to continuing the 0.x >> > line. >> > > >> > > First, as JoeW mentioned the Release Line Management page [1] says we >> > > support a major release for one year, so we should plan to support >> 0.7.x >> > > for one year from its July 13, 2016 release date [2]. >> > > >> > > Also, since we considered the 1.0.0 release a beta [3], the 0.x line >> was >> > > due any fixes, features, and enhancements through the release of 1.1.0 >> on >> > > November 30th. So the features and fixes through November 30th should >> be >> > > backported where possible and appropriate and after that any fixes >> > relating >> > > to security or data loss should be backported for the life of the 0.x >> > line. >> > > >> > > Next, I agree with JoeW that we don't want old lines to be a burden on >> > the >> > > community, but I suggest we consider the user base and how practical it >> > is >> > > to expect them to upgrade. From 0.x to 1.x is a major transition, so I >> > > think we should give more time for that transition than we will might >> for >> > > 1.1 to 1.2. >> > > >> > > Finally, 0.x only recently became stable for my users in the last >> couple >> > of >> > > months, based on the 0.7.1 release with patches added for stability and >> > > corruption issues that is similar to Brandon's list of outstanding 0.x >> > > tickets. Since the non-beta 1.1.0 release is less than 3 months old >> and >> > > the transition from 0.x to 1.x is so significant, regardless of our >> > release >> > > policy I would propose we carry on the 0.x line on until 1.x has >> settled >> > > and been shown to be similarly stable. >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Joe >> > > >> > > [1] >> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Git+ >> > > Branching+and+Release+Line+Management >> > > [2] >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/46678ade742887c624c14faf16d187 >> > > e039827121e35d08f468c3cbfe@%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E >> > > [3] >> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/91a4c272ddf2e80ec2fefd95c2a1df >> > > 6c37689f4290aba5bdb81afd35@%3Cusers.nifi.apache.org%3E >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Brandon DeVries <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Based on Jira, there are 20 tickets marked as fixed in 0.8.0 and >> > nowhere >> > > > else in the 0.x line[1]. Highlights from these include: >> > > > >> > > > - NIFI-2890 - Provenance Repository corruption >> > > > - NIFI-2920 - Swapped FlowFiles are not removed from content repo >> > > when a >> > > > queue is emptied. >> > > > - NIFI-3055 - StandardRecordWriter can throw >> UTFDataFormatException >> > > > - NIFI-3424 - CLONE for 0.x - Unable to generate Provenance Event >> > > > because FlowFile UUID is not set >> > > > - NIFI-3230 - Get/Put JMS broken for simple ActiveMQ SSL URIs >> > > > - NIFI-3403 - NPE in InvokeHTTP >> > > > - NIFI-3362 - Update FlowConfiguration.xsd TimePeriod to match >> > > > FormatUtils >> > > > - NIFI-2861 - ControlRate should accept more than one flow file >> per >> > > > execution >> > > > - NIFI-3350 - Reduce NiFi startup time by streamlining >> documentation >> > > > extraction >> > > > >> > > > Are we willing to port all of the tickets from [1] to the 0.7 branch? >> > Or >> > > > rather, which of them would not make the cut? There are a couple of >> > > things >> > > > on the list that seem like new features as opposed to pure bug >> fixes... >> > > > although I suppose the difference between a "bug fix" and an >> > > "improvement" >> > > > is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. >> > > > >> > > > Ultimately, as long as there's a release covering these issues >> > > (everything >> > > > except the NIFI-2991[2] stuff) I don't particularly care what it's >> > > called. >> > > > If there are issues left out and I need to run a SNAPSHOT of some >> sort >> > to >> > > > get them, then a further 0.x release doesn't help me anyway, and I'll >> > > > withdraw my suggestion. >> > > > >> > > > Brandon >> > > > >> > > > [1] >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% >> > > > 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.8.0%20and% >> > > > 20fixVersion%20not%20in%20(0.2.1%2C%200.3.0%2C%200.4.0%2C0. >> > > > 4.1%2C0.5.0%2C0.5.1%2C0.6.0%2C%200.6.1%2C0.7.0%2C%200.7.1% >> > > > 2C%200.7.2%2C%200.7.3)%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C% >> > 20priority%20DESC%2C% >> > > > 20created%20ASC >> > > > >> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2991 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > The 0.8 fixes for licensing remove a processor (gettwitter) at this >> > > > point. >> > > > > That I feel requires at least minor. But avoiding that for now and >> > > doing >> > > > > the bug fix things and doing 073 seems legit. >> > > > > >> > > > > Will wait and see if anyone else has a different interpretation on >> > the >> > > > > intent of our one year version guidance and then update the wiki if >> > > > appears >> > > > > we have consensus. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks >> > > > > Joe >> > > > > >> > > > > On Feb 24, 2017 7:19 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Especially as nothing that would be going into the 0.x release >> is a >> > > > major >> > > > > > feature or changes compatibility (from my understanding), I would >> > +1 >> > > > the >> > > > > > 0.7.3 suggestion. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Andy LoPresto >> > > > > > [email protected] >> > > > > > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* >> > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D >> EF69 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think it is probably worth clarifying the intent of the support >> > > > > language. >> > > > > > I believe the intent was to support 0.x for a year after 1.x was >> > > > > released. >> > > > > > That was how I initially read the document you mentioned. But >> > after a >> > > > > > re-read, I'd echo your concerns about dragging old major lines >> > along. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Tony >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Brandon, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > My concern is the language used when we published this "We >> support >> > > the >> > > > > > newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous major >> release >> > > > > > lines for up to one year since the last minor release (0.6.x, >> > 1.5.y) >> > > > > > in that line" within this document [1]. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If I read that now it seems like we're saying "if we make a minor >> > > > > > release we're going to support that for up to a year" and so each >> > > time >> > > > > > we create a new minor line on a given major line it means we are >> > > > > > resetting the clock. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I do not believe we should give old major lines, such as 0.x, the >> > > > > > ability to drag on the community indefinitely as that reads. I >> > > > > > believe it should be that we support a given major release line >> for >> > > up >> > > > > > to one year one after a new major release line is provided. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > So would like to hear peoples thoughts on that. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > If an 0.8 release is to occur the items called out are things >> which >> > > > > > impact licensing only (specifically the no longer allowed cat-x >> > json >> > > > > > library). I would be far more comfortable with 0.7.3 release >> which >> > > > > > would be fixing whatever bugs have been addressed. That avoids >> the >> > > > > > concern I noted above for this case though i'd still like us to >> > > > > > clarify that language/intent anyway. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks >> > > > > > Joe >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Brandon DeVries <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Team, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The only unresolved tickets against the 0.8.0 release[1] are for >> > the >> > > > > > removal of code... With that in mind, does anyone object to >> trying >> > > to >> > > > > > >> > > > > > push >> > > > > > >> > > > > > for this (possibly final) 0.x release? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Brandon >> > > > > > >> > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% >> > > > > > >> > > > > > 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.8.0%20AND% >> > 20resolution%20%3D% >> > > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority% >> > > > > > 20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
