nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Jackoway <al...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Next release?
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:27:57 GMT
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