Github user mcgilman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/82#issuecomment-172551960
Sorry this PR has lingered this long. It looks like the current release of
Spring is 4.2.4.RELEASE. Would you be able to update your branch to reflect
this version?
Github user olegz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/176#issuecomment-172556905
There is also a compile warning in the catch clause preceding the place
where you made you changes
```
} catch (final IOException e) {
Github user olegz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/171#issuecomment-172564889
At the moment I agree, this should not be merged as it was primarily done
to start the conversation -
Github user olegz closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/171
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is
Oleg,
Interesting document, what impact would it have on existing installations
of NIFI?
What would be the upgrade path for Custom Processors?
Are we breaking compatibility with the previous way of doing documentation?
Why not create a simple content repository that can hold the documentation
Josh
FWIW, let’s use WIKI comments to maintain a discussion. It will be simpler in
the end to compile a resolution and move on.
Yet, I’ll reply here anyway.
Yes, there will be breaking changes. Its not a question of IF, but rather WHEN.
What we can do is make it less painful by introducing
Github user olegz commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/148#issuecomment-172583777
I am not surprised, that's why I was against having a lock in a shutdown in
the first place. It doesn't bring any value since If you follow the logic of
shutting down
Github user trkurc commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/148#issuecomment-172582763
I think it may still deadlock. I scripted a startup and shutdown over and
over again for a few days, and it still was hanging on occasion. I should have
added a jstack..
Very much agreed Dan. I submitted my comments on the wiki.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:06 PM, dan bress wrote:
> I just tossed some comments on the wikipage.
>
> TL;DR I took a look at generating docs as part of the build months ago. I
> think its doable, and someone should
I’d like to add comments to the wiki, may I have permissions for that?
Thanks in advance,
Matt
On 1/18/16, 6:27 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote:
>Very much agreed Dan. I submitted my comments on the wiki.
>
>On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:06 PM, dan bress wrote:
>>
Joe
As a general rule, breaking changes will happen in any and every framework
and/or product - as a general fact of life. And that is what I meant with my
statement.
Having said that I do admit that reading it again comes across as if the
decision about the approach proposed in the wiki has
doing now. Try again in 30 secs.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I’d like to add comments to the wiki, may I have permissions for that?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Matt
>
>
>
> On 1/18/16, 6:27 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote:
>
>>Very much
I’m in! Thanks :)
On 1/18/16, 6:54 PM, "Joe Witt" wrote:
>doing now. Try again in 30 secs.
>
>On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>> I’d like to add comments to the wiki, may I have permissions for that?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
Github user apiri commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172666378
Sorry went off on a tangent on the previous part. In favor of that but
curious as to what the destination should be. Didn't do the integration test
classes myself but can
Github user mcgilman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172646806
Reviewing...
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user apiri commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172661289
Not opposed but not sure how to best accomplish this. A section in the dev
or contrib guide talking about how to activate and or what is currently present
seem reasonable?
Github user mcgilman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172668316
Yep, I realize this PR was just trying to establish the baseline and create
the build infrastructure. I can certainly +1 that aspect. I was just wondering
if this sort
Oleg,
"Yes, there will be breaking changes. Its not a question of IF, but
rather WHEN."
I disagree. It is always a question of IF.
We have to be extremely judicious in the use of breaking changes and
we owe the user/developer based excellent justification in such cases.
I will comment on the
Github user mcgilman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172657153
The build infrastructure changes look good. I realize the motivation for
this ticket was establishing this baseline. However, I wanted to try to run the
integration
Github user apiri commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172669320
Gotcha. There were some good suggestions on the related thread on the
mailing list but there are limited classes that fall into this category at this
time. Not necessarily
All
I have just published initial set of updates to the Extension Registry page on
the wiki - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Extension+Registry
The initial work was started by Bryan Bende a while back and I hope I’ve
managed to incorporate all of his points where relevant.
Github user mcgilman commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/173#issuecomment-172665743
Highlighting the existence of the new profile is a good idea and we should
do that. However, I was specifically referring to the AWS integration tests
that are part of
I just tossed some comments on the wikipage.
TL;DR I took a look at generating docs as part of the build months ago. I
think its doable, and someone should pursue it.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM Joe Witt wrote:
> Oleg,
>
> "Yes, there will be breaking changes. Its not
23 matches
Mail list logo