I agree sooner rather than later for cutting 0.7.1. I think Mike's question
to some degree was whether or not some of those tickets were worth fixing
in 0.x. For example, I'm not sure how much I care about:
NIFI-2571 deprecate NiFiProperties.getInstance()
NIFI-2163 nifi.sh follow the Linux
I think I brought this up before, I sort of expected we may do more 0.x
releases. I certainly think the more the bugs we can fix, the merrier, and
it seems like your list is a good initial strawman for a bug fix release of
we collectively would like to put one together.
While the tickets with
Any branches I created can be deleted
On Sep 26, 2016 11:57 AM, "Joe Witt" wrote:
> Andre
>
> The support branch for 0.7 would happen if there were a incremental
> release for it.
>
> The tags represent the exact released bits (version values are
> set/etc..). The
Hi Dale,
You could also check the permissions on the script. I was able to echo
text from a bash script which placed the text in the flowfile content.
Thanks,
Lee
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote:
> Hi Dale,
>
> I just tried to replicate this and
Hi Dale,
I just tried to replicate this and I’m not sure I fully understand the issue.
You can see the actual contents of my Java class [1], Bash script [2], and
command-line activity [3] in the Gists provided. I then set up a flow [4] which
simply executed the script every 5 seconds and
So I have a bash script that I am able to run from the command line, and I
want to be able to let NiFi call it using the ExecuteProcess processor.
The script itself runs fine from the command line, and it looks like the
ExecuteProcess is executing the script as well (I have a LogAttribute
All,
I would like to start the discussion of making the next official release of
the 0.x branch. I propose that this release be numbered 0.7.1 since it
seems that only bug fixes have occurred on the 0.x branch since 0.7.0 was
released.
The JIRA link [1] below can show you the tickets that have
Andre,
Is your target for NIFI-1500 the default installation permission scheme, or
just that NiFi does not fail to start without the permissions in a
customized scheme? Would it be acceptable to distinguish between
permissions required to initialize NiFi the first time, and the permissions
devs,
A while ago (0.4.0 IIRC) we had a brief exchange of messages around the
permissions NiFi requires to run (NIFI-1500).
The debate revolved mostly around 4 things:
1 - write access to $NIFI_HOME/bin
2. write access to $NIFI_HOME/lib - NIFI-2818 / #1059 (review is welcome)
3. write access
Joe,
Thanks, your tuning comments all make sense.
If they didn't have the similar CPU and RAM scales I probably would not
have tried it. It's only been running a couple of days, but I've already
noticed some anecdotal performance differences. For instance, the Linux
and OSX nodes appear
JoeS
I think you are seeing a queue bug that has been corrected or reported
on the 1.x line.
As for the frankencluster concept i think it is generally fair game.
There are a number of design reasons, most notably back pressure, that
make this approach feasible. So the big ticket items to
The images just show what the text described, 13 files queued, EmptyQueue
returns 0 of 13 removed, and ListQueue returns the queue has no flowfiles.
There were 13 files of 1k sitting in a queue between a SegmentContent and
ControlRate. After I sent that email I had to stop/start the processors a
12 matches
Mail list logo