nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next release?
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:37:17 GMT
We certainly follow the RTC process with NiFi. As Joe mentioned, as long as
there is a consensus plus one, then you can push.

I will put this on my plate to scope out at some point today and get you
the review so you can give your new credentials some usage.

Thanks!

--aldrin



On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alan Jackoway <alanj@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks
> good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put
> their own code in without sign off.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> ozhurakousky@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one
> > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a
> consensus
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ricky,
> > >
> > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> > >
> > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> > > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> > >
> > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > > privileges for that already?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <ricky@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> > adding a
> > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've
been
> > using
> > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues,
> > so it
> > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
> > >> release on the 19th.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Team,
> > >>>
> > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > >>>
> > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > >>>
> > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> > >>> based on username/password
> > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> > >>> given component
> > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > >>>
> > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do
> a
> > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
> > >>> of 040.
> > >>>
> > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
> > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Joe
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
main
> > idea
> > >>> is
> > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from
> the
> > RC.
> > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > power to
> > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> > should
> > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and
so
> on
> > >>> with
> > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can
> do.
> > >>> But
> > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbraddy@softnas.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Joe,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from
a
> > defects
> > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words,
what
> is
> > the
> > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release
and
> > >>> production
> > >>>>> use?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> Rick
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.witt@gmail.com]
> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > >>>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage
to
> move
> > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> strive
> > >>> for 6
> > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those
of
> > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > discussion
> > >>>>> there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> Joe
> > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.witt@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the
ticket.
> If
> > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be
awesome
> > though
> > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>> Joe
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> moser.mw@gmail.com
> > >
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> All,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've
noticed some
> > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests
as the
> "spinning
> > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread
and heap
> dumps
> > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've
made some
> > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > >>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback
from the
> > >>>>>>> community.
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but
would like
> to
> > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take
it.  We need to
> > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <busbey@cloudera.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release.
Any one up for
> > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > >
> >
>

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