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 17:30:54 GMT
Mike,

Thanks for the info, was not aware.  Will certainly keep an eye out.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Mike Drob <mdrob@apache.org> wrote:

> Aside: Fine grained authorization control through github is coming Real
> Soon Now, and AFAIK Infra will be rolling out a beta to a few projects
> within the coming months. I can't find a cite for this at the moment, but
> it's something they're working on.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, at least for the NiFi world (not sure if other Apache
> > projects have gotten this integration), our credentials do not map to
> > Github accounts.  I typically use a similar path as above or another
> > variant whereby I can access the PRs for the project locally.
> >
> > Regardless, this calls for a comitter's guide/section in addition to what
> > is currently on our Wiki as it has come up on multiple occasions.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Bryan Bende <bbende@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also, to answer Ricky's question about how to merge in the pull request
> > > once there is consensus...
> > >
> > > There are multiple ways to do it, but I believe what a lot of PMC
> members
> > > do is the following:
> > > - Get a patch of the pull request by appending .patch to the end of the
> > url
> > > - git am --signoff < foo.patch
> > > - git commit --allow-empty -m"This closes #___"
> > > - git push
> > >
> > > It may be as simple as clicking the merge button in github, but I
> haven't
> > > tried :)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinpiri@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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