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 03:44:13 GMT
For 1198 and 1203 those should be included.  Those are the sorts of
things we're going to be finding/fixing in the testing phase anyway.
Also, since they're impacting an as of yet unreleased feature we
really need the multiple eyes on testing which is how these were
found.

For NIFI-655 why not simply document that it is an untested
configuration and move forward?

Thanks
Joe

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