Mike it looks like there is only a single 0.7.3 ticket but there are a lot of 0.8.0 tickets. Are you planning to cherry-pick the needed commits into the support/0.7.x branch?
Thanks Joe On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Michael Moser <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >>
