I'll be starting to work through the release process for 0.7.3 over the next several days, under this [1] JIRA.
-- Mike [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3824 On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
