Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Wow. I built on java 11 instead of java 8 again. The exact same mistake I made last time. Disregard On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 7:40 PM Joe Witt wrote: > Hello > > Have 1.12.1 rc1 ready to go ...but It turns out the build is again too > large. All nars now have three expensive jaxb jars

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Hello Have 1.12.1 rc1 ready to go ...but It turns out the build is again too large. All nars now have three expensive jaxb jars included in them which has created a much larger build. Will look into this and try again. Joe On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joe Witt wrote: > Team, > > It

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Team, It looks like Andy and Nathan have resolved some important regressions that came from the jetty and bouncycastle updates. Namely it created difficulties with the toolkit creating certs the way we like and with Jetty understanding what to do in the event of multiple certs. I'm going to

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

The build size concern was mostly incorrect. I was looking at the result of a build on a java11 machine. We have improvements we can make there but the reality is we've done quite a good job managing build size in this release when done on a java 8 build which still works on java 8 and 11. So

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Started the RC1 build today. Then noticed the nifi assembly has grown too large again. Will review which nars are eligible for removal (either by being new and better as optional includes or by being old and people can pull them in as needed). We added a kafka 2.6 nar which is part of it. I'll

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Team, Looks like things are pretty good/stable to initiate an RC1 for 1.12. I plan to do that today or early tomorrow. Thanks On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:33 PM Joe Witt wrote: > Hello > > Just an update on push to 1.12 release. There have been a few items pop > up that require resolution.

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Hello Just an update on push to 1.12 release. There have been a few items pop up that require resolution. Keeping a close eye on these and will initiate the RC once we are looking stable. You can follow along and participate where appropriate by watching

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

I need to double check whether it needs rebased but there’s a docs PR for how to enable client TLS for ZooKeeper that I think would be good to include until the more integrated work is done: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4092 Would anyone have time to look? -joey On Aug 3, 2020, 11:47

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

ok cool. will keep an eye there once the other items land. Thanks On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 11:26 AM Bryan Bende wrote: > I was doing some testing and noticed some framework level classes like > prioritizers and authorizers were getting class not found exceptions. > > I believe it is related to

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

I was doing some testing and noticed some framework level classes like prioritizers and authorizers were getting class not found exceptions. I believe it is related to the module/classpath changes we made as part of NIFI-7592 [1], so we should hold on the RC until we can resolve that. [1]

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Mike, 7526 merged this weekend. 7605 sounds like LoPresto is going to look at. There are a couple others (kafka 2.5 and smb stuff i'd like to get in before I kick out the RC). Hopefully I can start that today. It is definitely time for 1.12! Thanks On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 3:13 PM Mike

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

7605 is the PR for the user agent discussion and 7526 is a small SSL refactor for the OAuth2TokenProvider that needs to be reviewed (as OAuth2TokenProvider is already part of master). Thanks, Mike On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 12:14 PM Joe Witt wrote: > > ...ok looking like NiFi 1.12 is pretty well

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

...ok looking like NiFi 1.12 is pretty well in hand. I plan early next week to start pulling the release together. Thanks! On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:39 AM Pierre Villard wrote: > Sounds good to me. Happy to take care of the RC duties for another release > once the OIDC work is available. > >

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Sounds good to me. Happy to take care of the RC duties for another release once the OIDC work is available. Le mar. 14 juil. 2020 à 21:31, Bryan Bende a écrit : > Spoke with Nathan again and there is still more work to do for OIDC in > registry. > > If no one objects, I'll work on kicking out

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Spoke with Nathan again and there is still more work to do for OIDC in registry. If no one objects, I'll work on kicking out an RC for 0.7.0 tomorrow morning, and we can land OIDC for the next release, likely an 0.8.0. On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 8:48 AM Bryan Bende wrote: > I can be RM for an

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

I can be RM for an 0.7.0 registry release. I spoke with Nathan and he has been making progress on the OIDC support, so I will wait a little bit to see if we can get that in, but if it starts taking longer then I'll proceed with getting an RC out. On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:41 AM Pierre Villard

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Regarding the NiFi Registry 0.7.0 release - if we can have the OIDC support in it, that would be great. I know Nathan is working on it (based on the JIRA) not sure if this is something close to being ready. Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 21:15, Mike Thomsen a écrit : > FYI, if we add in

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

FYI, if we add in https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4364 and a PR to deprecate the elasticsearch v5 bundle we can free up about 60MB in the convenience binary. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:43 PM Joe Witt wrote: > ...and just saw Bryans note. Do we need more work before kicking out reg >

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

...and just saw Bryans note. Do we need more work before kicking out reg release? On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:42 PM Joe Witt wrote: > 100% same page as Andy. Mark said later this week he will have some key > bits wrapped. Lets see where we are then. > > thanks > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

I think we probably want to consider releasing NiFi Registry 0.7.0 first. We have to do that in order to save versioned flows containing the new process group concurrency controls, otherwise the config would get lost when saved to registry. This is the nifi side PR that can’t be merged until a

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

100% same page as Andy. Mark said later this week he will have some key bits wrapped. Lets see where we are then. thanks On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM Andy LoPresto wrote: > Martin, > > I understand everyone is anxious to get their hands on the next release, > but this thread is exactly how

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Martin, I understand everyone is anxious to get their hands on the next release, but this thread is exactly how we determine what will be in it. There is an inherent balance in determining which features and fixes need to be included to make the release worth it and which will delay it, and

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

** that's not to say I'll try to hold up a release vote over it, but there is a good reason behind asking that it be included in the last round of reviews. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:07 PM Mike Thomsen wrote: > #4217 is something I need because I'm planning to build a Cassandra-based >

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

#4217 is something I need because I'm planning to build a Cassandra-based DistributedMapCache service for my client and contribute it back once we determine that it's stable enough to give back. On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM Martin Ebert wrote: > Hi Mike, > I suggest we wrap this up and only

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Hi Mike, I suggest we wrap this up and only include your PRs in version 1.13 Are there any objections to release NiFi 1.12? We should not keep the community waiting any longer. Best, Martin Mike Thomsen schrieb am Mi., 10. Juni 2020, 00:14: > I would like to refactor the OAuth2TokenProvider

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

I would like to refactor the OAuth2TokenProvider controller service to use the class that InvokeHttp now delegates to (OkHttpClientBuilderUtils?) for SSL configuration. I could get a pretty fast turn around on that one. Also, would like to see if we can get

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Joe, I do think there are a couple of things that I’d like to see make it into 1.12. I worked on NIFI-7476 [1] and it’s been merged to master. But it adds a couple of fields to the data model for Process Groups. So that, unfortunately, means we need to update the data model in NiFi Registry [3]

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Thanks Joe. I could use a reviewer for [1], and I’m taking a look at a couple other things that have gone in recently but should be ready very soon. [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4228 Andy LoPresto alopre...@apache.org

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Team, Took me a bit longer than planned but am back in position to help drive a 1.12 release. Anything we're still trying to wrap we need to wait for? Thanks On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:03 AM Joe Witt wrote: > Ok thanks for the heads up Bence > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:50 AM Simon Bence >

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Ok thanks for the heads up Bence On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:50 AM Simon Bence wrote: > Hi, > > If the community decides to go on with 1.11.5, I kindly ask to include > NIFI-7292 in order to fix the issue reported in NIFI-7454. Thank you! > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7454 < >

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Hi, If the community decides to go on with 1.11.5, I kindly ask to include NIFI-7292 in order to fix the issue reported in NIFI-7454. Thank you! https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7454 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7292

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Hello I will be unavailable to conduct release management now for probably the next week or two. I'll come back to this thread when able to dive in. Thanks On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:11 PM Joe Witt wrote: > K - sounds good. Will circle back in a few days. > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:56 PM

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

K - sounds good. Will circle back in a few days. On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:56 PM Andy LoPresto wrote: > Thanks for starting this thread Joe. I agree the back-pressure fix is one > that will help the community a lot. I am currently working on a couple > security features which would also

Re: [discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Thanks for starting this thread Joe. I agree the back-pressure fix is one that will help the community a lot. I am currently working on a couple security features which would also greatly benefit users. I’d like to see these get in 1.12.0 if possible, especially as there are some changes that

[discuss] 1.12.0 or 1.11.5...

Team, A couple folks have recently reported slowness in the UI in the recent releases particularly with larger and more production style flows. It appears to be related to when back pressure prediction is enabled [1]. It also appears this is already fixed [2] and on 1.12.0-SNAPSHOT. I'd like