nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: PRs
Date Wed, 25 Nov 2015 03:56:05 GMT
Tags are a great place to mark experimental.  We used to plan for this
concept outright and make it look at scary and such on the ui.  But
folks just didn't care.  They used it anyway.  Happy to revisit it but
for now perhaps just adding a tag of experimental is enough.

If the existing code path is largely untouched then that is certainly
great for moving the ball forward.  In fairness to Joe S or anyone
that has to persist internal process state until we offer that as part
of the framework it is much harder than we want it to be for people.
Will take a look through the state methods but Payne is probably the
best at playing the wack a mole edge case game for such things.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Tony Kurc <trkurc@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
View raw message