Does 5562 need to be addressed in 1.8? https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2977
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 6:33 PM Jeff <[email protected]> wrote: > NiFi Devs, > > The Release page [1] for 1.8.0 now reports that all issues are done! I'd > like to start the release candidate preparation tomorrow, around 1200 EST. > > Thanks to everyone for all the great work that's been done! 196 issues > resolved in this version with some great new features! > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NIFI/versions/12343482 > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:30 AM Sivaprasanna <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Great. Thanks. :) > > > > - > > Sivaprasanna > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:09 AM Koji Kawamura <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Jeff, Sivasprasanna, > > > > > > NIFI-5698 (PR3073) Fixing DeleteAzureBlob bug is merged. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Koji > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:18 AM Koji Kawamura <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Thank you for the fix Sivaprasanna, > > > > I have Azure account. Reviewing it now. > > > > > > > > Koji > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 11:21 PM Jeff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sivaprasanna, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for submitting a pull request for that issue! Later today > or > > > > > tomorrow I'll have to check to see if I've already used up my > > free-tier > > > > > access to Azure. If I still have access, I can review your PR and > > > we'll > > > > > get it into 1.8.0. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 4:30 AM Sivaprasanna < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > All - Just found one bug with DeleteAzureBlobStorage processor. > It > > > was > > > > > > shared by one user on StackOverflow [1] and I later confirmed it. > > It > > > looks > > > > > > to be introduced by NIFI-4199. I have created a Jira [2] and made > > the > > > > > > necessary changes (not huge, just few lines) and raised a PR > [3]. I > > > think, > > > > > > if we can spend a little time in getting it reviewed, we can mark > > it > > > for > > > > > > 1.8.0. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52766991/apache-nifi-deleteazureblobstorage-processor-is-throwing-an-error > > > > > > [2] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5698 > > > > > > [3] - https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/3073 > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Sivaprasanna > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:05 PM Mike Thomsen < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4811 should be ready for review now. Rebased and cleaned it up > > > with a > > > > > > full > > > > > > > listing of the Spring dependencies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:23 AM Joe Witt <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think for anything not tagged to 1.8.0 we just keep > rolling. > > > For > > > > > > > > anything tagged 1.8.0 that should not be we should remove it > > > until > > > > > > > > ready. For things tagged to 1.8.0 that cannot be moved we > > should > > > > > > > > resolve. For the tagged 1.8.0 section you had. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-4811 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4811> > > > - > > > > > > Use a > > > > > > > > newer version of spring-data-redis > > > > > > > > - PR 2856 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2856> > > > > > > > > *This needs to be resolved by either reverting the commit or > > > ensuring > > > > > > > > L&N accurately reflects all. We have to do this always and > for > > > every > > > > > > > > nar. The process isnt easy or fun but it is necessary to > > produce > > > > > > > > valid ASF releases. Landing commits which change > dependencies > > > > > > > > requires this due diligence. Now, we've put a lot of energy > > into > > > > > > > > updating Spring dependencies because some older Spring libs > had > > > > > > > > vulnerabilities which while we likely aren't exposed to them > we > > > want > > > > > > > > to fix in due course. So reverting may require more analysis > > > than if > > > > > > > > we were just get L&N fixed with this new change. I commented > > on > > > the > > > > > > > > JIRA. But this needs to be resolved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5426 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5426> > > > - Use > > > > > > > > NIO.2 API for ListFile to avoid multiple disk reads > > > > > > > > - PR 2889 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2889> > > > > > > > > *This just needed to be marked resolved. The commit went in > > the > > > day > > > > > > > > after we cut 1.7.1. So this one is sorted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5448 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5448> > > > - > > > > > > > Failed > > > > > > > > EL date parsing live-locks processors without a failure > > > relationship > > > > > > > > * The commit needs to be reverted. I'm working on that now. > > > Once the > > > > > > > > discsusion/concerns are addressed this can get dealt with. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5665 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5665> > > > - > > > > > > > Upgrade > > > > > > > > io.netty dependencies > > > > > > > > * This looks important to get resolved if possible as old > netty > > > libs > > > > > > > > are on the list of things with vulnerabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5686 < > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5686> > > > - > > > > > > Test > > > > > > > > failure in TestStandardProcessScheduler > > > > > > > > - PR 3062 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/3062> > > > > > > > > * This has a PR but a test, possibly two, failed in one of > the > > > travis > > > > > > > > runs and it is clearly related. I ignored one of those tests > > in > > > a > > > > > > > > previous run. We must deal with brittle tests. But the > > > underlying > > > > > > > > problem is important to solve here so either the tests needs > > > improved > > > > > > > > or we still have an issue. Not clear but worth some focus. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > note: I intend to reference updates to libraries that have > > known > > > > > > > > vulnerabilities and do so in a far less subtle manner than we > > > had. We > > > > > > > > aren't acknowledging that NiFi is or exposes vulnerabilities > > but > > > we > > > > > > > > are and should be clear when we're updating dependencies that > > do > > > have > > > > > > > > them (even if we're not exposed to them) so that some of > these > > > commits > > > > > > > > aren't so mysterious. It creates far more confusion than is > > > worth. > > > > > > > > We still will follow the ASF/NiFi security handling policy > but > > I > > > no > > > > > > > > longer intend to treat due course dependency updates as if > they > > > need > > > > > > > > to be a secret. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:32 AM Jeff <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello everyone! Next week is probably a good timeframe to > > aim > > > for a > > > > > > > > > release candidate, with two major feature PRs recently > merged > > > to > > > > > > > master: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5516 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5516> - > > > > > > > Allow > > > > > > > > > data in a Connection to be Load-Balanced across cluster > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5585 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5585> - > > > > > > > > Prepare > > > > > > > > > Nodes to be Offloaded > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To recap, here's a list of other JIRAs mentioned in this > > > thread: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5402 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5402> - > > > > > > > > Reduce > > > > > > > > > artifact size by only building .zip archive > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5462 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5462> - > > > > > > > > Refactor > > > > > > > > > TLS Toolkit > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5485 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5485> - > > > > > > > > Enable > > > > > > > > > TLS Toolkit (client/server) to sign certificates with > > > external CA > > > > > > > > > certificate > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5537 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5537> - > > > > > > > > Create > > > > > > > > > Neo4J cypher execution processor > > > > > > > > > - PR 2956 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2956> > > > > > > > > > - Mike Thomsen, this was the specific JIRA to which > you > > > were > > > > > > > > > referring, right? > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5582 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5582> - > > > > > > > > Integrate > > > > > > > > > legacy behavior of HashAttribute into > > > CryptographicHashAttribute > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These JIRAs are marked with a fix version of 1.8.0 that are > > not > > > > > > > currently > > > > > > > > > resolved: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-4811 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-4811> - > > > > > > > Use a > > > > > > > > > newer version of spring-data-redis > > > > > > > > > - PR 2856 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2856> > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5426 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5426> - > > > > > > Use > > > > > > > > > NIO.2 API for ListFile to avoid multiple disk reads > > > > > > > > > - PR 2889 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2889> > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5448 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5448> - > > > > > > > > Failed > > > > > > > > > EL date parsing live-locks processors without a failure > > > > > > relationship > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5665 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5665> - > > > > > > > > Upgrade > > > > > > > > > io.netty dependencies > > > > > > > > > - NIFI-5686 < > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-5686> - > > > > > > > Test > > > > > > > > > failure in TestStandardProcessScheduler > > > > > > > > > - PR 3062 <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/3062> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:39 AM Mike Thomsen < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a fair point. Only thing I could add there is > that I > > > think > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > > > consider a targeted burn down on the PR list as part of > > 1.9. > > > There > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > lot of PRs from the last several months that would be > good > > > > > > candidates > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > see if we can close them out like MarkLogic and Pulsar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:34 PM Joe Witt < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Processors in particularly are among the toughest at > this > > > point. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > > > > have very very little headroom on dependency size for > the > > > full > > > > > > > build > > > > > > > > > > > size that we upload to ASF infra and mirrors. That and > > the > > > > > > license > > > > > > > > > > > review work involved in each... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We should really create a way to publish processors on > > more > > > > > > > frequent, > > > > > > > > > > > irregular intervals where the release work and > size/etc.. > > > are far > > > > > > > > less > > > > > > > > > > > problematic. We have another discuss thread on that so > > > I'll > > > > > > leave > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > > > there for discussion. I do share your view that this > > > processor > > > > > > > > (among > > > > > > > > > > > several others outstanding) would be really useful but > i > > am > > > > > > > > definitely > > > > > > > > > > > thinking we should keep release pace up. Release more > > > > > > > > often...release > > > > > > > > > > > processors separately, etc.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:30 PM Mike Thomsen < > > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to see the Neo4J work that mans2singh is > > > doing get > > > > > > > > > > included. > > > > > > > > > > > > Being able to at least partially support a popular > > graph > > > > > > database > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > a nice feather in our cap. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 5:12 PM Andy LoPresto < > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am currently working on a TLS Toolkit refactor > > > (NIFI-5462 & > > > > > > > > > > > NIFI-5485) > > > > > > > > > > > > > and HashAttribute updates (NIFI-5582). I believe > > there > > > are a > > > > > > > > couple > > > > > > > > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs open, and I would really like to see NIFI-5402 > > (no > > > > > > .tar.gz > > > > > > > > in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > build) tackled for this release as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy LoPresto > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > *[email protected] < > > > [email protected]>* > > > > > > > > > > > > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE > 3C6E > > > F65B > > > > > > 2F7D > > > > > > > > EF69 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Joe Witt < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff - thanks again for volunteering. I just went > > > through > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > > > > > items tagged to 1.8.0 to try and shake some loose, > > > close down > > > > > > > > ones > > > > > > > > > > > > > that appear to be done but forgotten, and initiate > > > resolution > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > > > > > that is in a dangling state. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another very nice release shaping up here. All the > > > work > > > > > > around > > > > > > > > load > > > > > > > > > > > > > balancing and node offloading is awesome. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:06 PM Jeff < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It looks like we're getting close to a point where > we > > > could > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > NiFi > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1.8.0The release tracking page for version 1.8.0 > [1] > > > shows 3 > > > > > > > "in > > > > > > > > > > > progress" > > > > > > > > > > > > > and 9 "to do" issues. In addition to what has been > > > tagged > > > > > > with > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > fix > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of 1.8.0, it looks like NIFI-5516 and > > > NIFI-5585 are > > > > > > > > close to > > > > > > > > > > > > > completion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there other JIRAs that the community considers > > > necessary > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > > release that are close to being resolved, with the > > > goal of > > > > > > > > getting a > > > > > > > > > > > > > release candidate out in the next couple of weeks? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm happy to perform the release manager duties! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NIFI/versions/12343482 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
