Re: Confluence wiki edit permission

Thanks Joe. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > Andrew > > You should now have permissions to edit the wiki. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Andrew Psaltis > wrote: > > Hi, > > I am interested in fixing an issue

Re: Confluence wiki edit permission

Andrew You should now have permissions to edit the wiki. Thanks Joe On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Andrew Psaltis wrote: > Hi, > I am interested in fixing an issue and adding more content in the > contributor guide on the wiki. One change is pretty simple an invalid

Confluence wiki edit permission

Hi, I am interested in fixing an issue and adding more content in the contributor guide on the wiki. One change is pretty simple an invalid URL. The additional content I am thinking of at this time is around this process in particular. I searched around trying to understand the process of how to

Re: Apache Rat and JSON files

I was just about to respond to myself, thanks Aldrin! For anyone else searching just add this to the pom org.apache.rat apache-rat-plugin src/test/resources/*.json Regards, Chris > On Jul 7, 2017, at 4:06

Re: Apache Rat and JSON files

You can provide exclusions for files such as this in the pom.xml. Don't have specific path handy as on mobile but some grep'ing of other .json file names should show the way. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 14:03 Chris Herrera wrote: > Hi All, > > I am working on a

Apache Rat and JSON files

Hi All, I am working on a contribution, and as part of it, there is a json file. I cannot put comments in that json file and, as such, it does not pass the rat check. Has anyone dealt with this issue before? Regards, Chris

Re: RTC clarification

I am in favor of allowing Scenario A and leaving it up to the committer / submitter to determine if the review is sufficient to merge or if an additional review(s) should take place. I think for committers will know the difference between, say, a documentation update or minor enhancement / fix

Re: MiNiFi Java as Windows Service

I submitted a pull request for running MiNiFi as a Windows service using Commons Daemon's Procrun. Like winsw it supports more than just Java applications so it should work for the C++ version as well. I went with it due to it also being ASL and just due to personal familiarity. If there's a

Re: RTC clarification

Joe(s), as you mentioned, even if we have a non-committer review, it can’t be merged until a committer decides whether to accept whatever decision was provided. So, the burden is still on committers as to whether it’s really a +1 or not. And presumably this should only happen if there’s some

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi - July 2017

thanks team. board report submitted. On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Yolanda Davis wrote: > +1 LGTM > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Marc wrote: > >> +1 Looks good! >> >> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Psaltis

Re: Interest in a time series simulator processor for NiFi

Chris, This sounds great! IMO Realistic data generation in all forms is a great addition, looking forward to your contribution! Regards, Matt > On Jul 7, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Chris Herrera wrote: > > Hi All, > > I am trying to gauge interest in a processor I have

Interest in a time series simulator processor for NiFi

Hi All, I am trying to gauge interest in a processor I have written that generates realistic time series data. I used the excellent GenerateFlowFile processor for a long time for load testing, etc..., however, I needed something that mirrored more the semantics of a sensor, and more

Re: RTC clarification

We're looking at a possible set of scenarios comprised of a 'submitter' and a 'reviewer'. There can be one or more reviewers. A submitter or reviewer is either a committer or is not a committer. If there is at least one reviewer that is a committer it is a committer reviewed scenario. So with

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi - July 2017

+1 LGTM On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:10 AM, Marc wrote: > +1 Looks good! > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Psaltis > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 08:20 Pierre Villard > > > wrote: > > > > > +1

Re: RTC clarification

I agree that non-committer review make more sense if the reviewer has established some level of credibility and involvement in the community. Ultimately, the final committer has to be a community member and they will have final responsibility for the code being Apache compliant and NiFi ready, so

Re: RTC clarification

There are always exceptions, but I think the best way to ensure that the spirit of what we're going for is being followed is to say "no one commits their own code". While additional eyes are never going to be a bad thing, requiring a second person to "sign off" on and then commit the code would

Re: RTC clarification

I agree with encouraging reviews from everyone, but I lean towards "binding" reviews coming from committers. If we allow any review to be binding, there could be completely different levels of review that occur... There could be someone who isn't a committer yet, but has been contributing

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi - July 2017

+1 LGTM, thank you for putting this together! Regards, Matt On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Team, > > It's that time again to submit our board report for Apache NiFi. > Please see below draft. If you have any suggestions/fixes, edits > please advise. > >

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi - July 2017

+1 Looks good! On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andrew Psaltis wrote: > +1 > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 08:20 Pierre Villard > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > 2017-07-06 14:09 GMT+02:00 Joe Skora : > > > > > +1 Release this package

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi - July 2017

+1 On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 08:20 Pierre Villard wrote: > +1 > > 2017-07-06 14:09 GMT+02:00 Joe Skora : > > > +1 Release this package as NiFi Board Report July 2017 > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Tony Kurc wrote: > > > >

Re: RTC clarification

Thanks for fielding the question, Tony. Joe and James' statements both make sense. I suppose a case by case analysis could be carried out, too. For example, since I'm mostly unfamiliar with the code base but am looking to gain familiarity, I'm reviewing pretty straightforward or trivial PRs. My