nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: PRs
Date Wed, 25 Nov 2015 03:52:07 GMT
So, I beat on the the patch for NIFI-1107, and as I suspected, it is
awfully low risk for existing flows, but I think I'd need a second opinion
on how state is kept for resuming uploads. I believe it will work, and it
looks like a lot of the edge cases are covered if somehow state is lost or
corrupted, but I'm not sure if I am comfortable with how it fits
architecturally. If someone has cycles, and can peruse the *State methods
(getState, persistState, ...) and weigh in, it would accelerate my review
significantly.

Also, it sure would be great to mark features as experimental!



On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:36 PM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gilman@gmail.com>
wrote:

> These tickets [1][2] address the incorrect validation errors we were
> seeing for processors that include the Input Required annotation. These
> were bugs that slipped through the NIFI-810 the review. Would be good to
> include if possible but I understand we need to draw the line somewhere.
>
> As for NIFI-655, I've been struggling getting an LDAP server stood up that
> uses 2 way SSL. Hopefully we can get that squared away soon and wrap this
> one up. :)
>
> Matt
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1198
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1203
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Given the testing to NIFI-1192 and review of NIFI-631 done already
> > both are lower risk I think.
> >
> > NIFI-1107 seems very useful and helpful but we do need to be careful
> > given that we know this one is already in use and this is a
> > substantive change.
> >
> > If there are folks that can dig into review/testing of NIFI-1107 that
> > would be great.  Waiting for word on NIFI-655 readiness then I think
> > we should go cold and just focus on testing an RC.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Agreed. I know there has already been a good deal of discussion about
> >> design on all these.
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No qualms here.  If they look good to go while the work and testing
> >>> surrounding NIFI-655 wraps up, they might as well be included. Would
> not
> >>> want to delay the release should any of these become protracted in
> terms of
> >>> iterations.
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> All,
> >>>> I was reviewing github PRs and wondering whether anyone objected to
> >>>> slipping a couple that look like they're very close into 0.4.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> NIFI-1192 (#131)
> >>>> NIFI-631 (#113)
> >>>> NIFI-1107 (#192)
> >>>>
> >>>> I should have some review cycles tonight. Lots of comments on them
> all,
> >>> and
> >>>> have good "momentum".
> >>>>
> >>>> Tony
> >>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message