It isn't worth sinking a vote over but it is worth fixing.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3820
I'll take care of it.
thanks
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Michael Moser wrote:
> +0 (non-binding)
>
> In 1.2.0, the nifi-standard-bundle now includes
+0 (non-binding)
In 1.2.0, the nifi-standard-bundle now includes calcite-core-1.12.0.jar,
and the nifi-standard-nar has Apache Calcite mentioned in its NOTICE.
However we don't seem to have Apache Calcite in the assembly NOTICE. Does
this qualify for a -1 vote?
We have also upgraded the version
Based on the RPM issue and the two issues Matt pointed out, I am also
voting -1 and cancelling this vote.
We will kick out an RC2 when these issues have been addressed.
Thank you to everyone who checked out the release and provided feedback.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Matt Gilman
Thanks Joe!
From: Joe Witt
Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 12:56 PM
To: dev@nifi.apache.org
Subject: Re: MiNiFi C++ JSON library efficiency
instead of assigning you the ticket we can add you as a contributor in
the minifi JIRA and then you
instead of assigning you the ticket we can add you as a contributor in
the minifi JIRA and then you can assign yourself as you see fit to any
tickets. I've just done this so give it a try.
Thanks
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Reynolds, John
wrote:
> Marc,
>
> I
Marc,
I went ahead and created a ticket for changing over to RapidJSON where
applicable.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-298
Happy to work that if no one else wants to. Would need someone to assign me to
the ticket.
Cheers,
John
From:
-1 binding
While evaluating the RC I encountered two issues. I've filed the following
JIRAs [1] [2] to address them.
Matt
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3813
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3808
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Richard St. John
-1 non-binding
Unable to build RPM due to added line breaks
Added a JIRA ticket for issue
Rick.
On Fri, May 5, 2017, 10:25 AM Matt Burgess wrote:
> +1 binding, release as nifi-1.2.0
>
> - confirmed keys, hashes, and commit
> - built with tests and contrib-check
> - ran
Hello Apache NiFi community,
Please find the associated guidance to help those interested in
validating/verifying the release so they can vote.
# Download latest KEYS file:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/KEYS
# Import keys file:
gpg --import KEYS
# Pull down nifi-minifi-cpp-0.2.0
Hello Apache NiFi Community,
I am pleased to be calling this vote for the source release of Apache NiFi
MiNiFi C++, nifi-minifi-cpp-0.2.0.
The source archive, signature, and digests can be located at:
Source Archive:
Thanks, Joe! I will document them.
Jeff
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Jeff
>
> We have test quality challenges in my opinion. Not new to this release at
> all but we did correct or isolate a lot of tests in this release cycle.
> Please feel free to
+1 binding, release as nifi-1.2.0
- confirmed keys, hashes, and commit
- built with tests and contrib-check
- ran various flows using the record readers/writers, new and existing
processors, controller services, etc.
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Bryan Bende wrote:
> Hello,
Jeff
We have test quality challenges in my opinion. Not new to this release at
all but we did correct or isolate a lot of tests in this release cycle.
Please feel free to file jiras for unstable tests as you find them. We
want unit tests that will prove behavior, verify no regressions, run
I'm getting a few random test errors when building the 1.2.0 source
release. The failures seem to be completely random. I have built many times
per the steps below and most times everything is ok but every now and then
one of the tests fails. I can't reproduce any of them in Maven or Eclipse.
+1 binding
* confirmed keys, hashes, and commit
* built with tests and contrib-check
* checked the README, LICENSE, and NOTICE files
* ran convenience binary
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:52 AM, u...@moosheimer.com
wrote:
> +1
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
>
Hi Andy,
Perhaps the ease of use was the motivating factor. You bring up an
excellent point, though. The trade off is likely one to make given the
numbers you provided . If you haven't already created a jira ticket to
track this I can. I'm supportive of reviewing alternative dependencies
given
16 matches
Mail list logo