nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan H <rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NiFi 0.7.0 and 1.0.0
Date Wed, 01 Jun 2016 02:00:41 GMT
Also looking forward to using the TransformJSON processor:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/TransformJSON.java

Nice choice with JOLT there.

We're doing a custom one for jolt transformers for that now.

Ryan

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ryan H <rhendrickson.work@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm looking forward to 0.7.. Plenty of awesome features, like SSL with the
> AMQP processors (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1521)
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ok just to wrap up this thread. Will push a couple efforts
>> 1) Will start pulling together an 0.7 release
>> 2) Will update the roadmap slide to put in tentative timing/major
>> elements in the roadmap on the wiki page
>>
>> And as for whether 0.7 ends up being the last release of the 0.x line
>> will just depend on 1.0 release timing and community interest in doing
>> an 0.8.  We don't have to decide that now.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopresto@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > I think Mike’s read on the published guidelines is correct, but I agree
>> with
>> > Joe that if we release 0.7 two weeks before 1.0, feature development
>> that is
>> > merged after 0.7 does not need to be backported. Maybe this is
>> something we
>> > should clarify on the wiki once we reach a consensus.
>> >
>> >
>> > Andy LoPresto
>> > alopresto@apache.org
>> > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>> >
>> > On May 17, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > I agree with the letter of the reading so this thread is to discuss
>> > the spirit of it and how to best apply it to our situation and
>> > community now.  Whether it is 'just before' or 'just after' or 'same
>> > time' I think it is within the intent.  I just want us to be clear
>> > what it is.  It is extra work to ensure each PR is applied to both
>> > lines and extra work increases contributor and reviewer burden so we
>> > should be mindful of that as it is a dragging force.  We also need to
>> > keep in mind that with 1.x we have Java 8 as a minimum and so there
>> > are cases which will not apply to both and we don't want folks to
>> > avoid using Java 8 features just so it can apply to both.
>> >
>> > My preference is that we have 0.7 as the last planned feature release
>> > in 0.x and with that in mind we need to choose to have it be a bit
>> > before, a bit after, or at the same time as the 1.x release.  I
>> > personally am comfortable with what I proposed for 0.7 vs 1.0 timing
>> > but I am fine if the consensus is to release the last 0.x and 1.0 at
>> > the same time.  Just hoping to avoid needing to have another feature
>> > release on 0.x after 0.7 other than some special request that might
>> > come up later (which is also discussed in the support doc).
>> >
>> > I also agree the release process for 1.0 will be significant as it
>> > will include important new features.  Definitely need folks testing
>> > out and providing feedback on the features early and often.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Michael Moser <moser.mw@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > The way I read the release support document, I don't think the feature
>> > cut-off for the 0.x branch happens when we confirm a release date for
>> 1.0,
>> > I think it occurs once we actually release 1.0.  Maybe the cut-off can
>> > happen once we declare the first 1.0 release candidate.  I'm sure we
>> will
>> > spend significant time doing testing and bug fixes on 1.0 release
>> > candidates.  If I recall, we spent 2 weeks on 0.6.1 release candidates.
>> >
>> > -- Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I believe that is right Andy.  The support guide articulates that we
>> > could do a feature release upon request if there was some specific
>> > need a community member had but that otherwise the only releases on an
>> > older line still supported would be focused on security/data loss type
>> > items.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopresto@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > This schedule seems appropriate to me. Once 0.7.0 is released and we
>> >
>> > confirm
>> >
>> > the release date for 1.0, feature development is completely targeted to
>> >
>> > 1.0,
>> >
>> > correct? Security and data loss bug fixes would still be backported, but
>> >
>> > new
>> >
>> > features would not.
>> >
>> > Andy LoPresto
>> > alopresto@apache.org
>> > alopresto.apache@gmail.com
>> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>> >
>> > On May 17, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Ok - i'm good with an 0.7 release too and think it is a good idea.  I
>> > am happy to RM the release.
>> >
>> > I'd like to select a date at which we're happy to call the 0.x line
>> > then feature complete which means 0.7 would be the last feature
>> > bearing 0.x release and from then on it would be bug fixes only
>> > consistent withe support model.  To do that I think we should feel
>> > reasonably confident that the 1.x release is close.  So let's say we
>> > did an 0.7 release early June - say first week of June.  I'd like us
>> > to say then that 1.x is targeted to early July.
>> >
>> > If this seems like a reasonable path I'll start filling out the
>> > tragically never updated roadmap wiki page [1] with the 0.7 target,
>> > 1.x target, and put some placeholder/tentatives for the 1.1 and beyond
>> > targets.  Will wait for additional inputs.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58851850
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Oleg Zhurakousky
>> > <ozhurakousky@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Agreed! I would like to see 0.7 within 2-3 weeks as there are a lot of
>> > improvements and new features/components in it already, and would like
>> to
>> > give it some miles before 1.0.
>> >
>> > Oleg
>> >
>> > On May 17, 2016, at 4:02 PM, James Wing <jvwing@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm definitely in favor of releasing 0.7.0, but I don't think we need be
>> > rigid about the schedule.  If delaying 0.7.0 a few weeks (2-4?) helps
>> >
>> > pace
>> >
>> > us towards a 1.0 in mid- to late-Summer, that seems reasonable to me.
>> Do
>> > we believe that is still a likely target?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > James
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Joe Witt <joewitt@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Team,
>> >
>> > Want to start zeroing in on the details of the next releases.  We had
>> > a good set of discussions around this back in January and have since
>> > been executing along this general path [1].
>> >
>> > On the 0.x line the next release would be 0.7.0.  There does appear to
>> > be a lot of useful improvements/features/fixes there now and it is
>> > time to do a release according to our general 6-8 week approach.
>> > However, given all the effort going into 1.x I'd like to get a sense
>> > of what the community preference is.
>> >
>> > On the 1.0 line the release is coming into focus.  Some things have
>> > moved into 1.x and some things look like they'd slide to the right of
>> > 1.x as is to be expected.  For example distributed durability (HA
>> > Data) looks like a good thing to do post 1.0 given the substantive
>> > changes present from the new HA clustering approach and multi-tenant
>> > authorization.  I'd also like to dive in and liberally apply Apache
>> > Yetus annotations [2] to all the things so we can be really explicit
>> > about what parts we can more freely evolve going forward.  We've been
>> > a bit awkwardly hamstrung thus far without these so they should help
>> > greatly to better convey intent.
>> >
>> > For those really interested in things coming in the 1.0 release please
>> > take a look through the JIRAs currently there and provide comments on
>> > what is important to you, what you'd like to see moved out, in, etc..
>> > [3].  At this point there are still a lot of things which will likely
>> > need to move out to allow the release to occur in a timely fashion.
>> >
>> > Also, keep in mind our stated release line/support model as found here
>> >
>> > [4].
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> >
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >
>> >
>> > [2]
>> >
>> >
>> https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.2.1/audience-annotations-apidocs/
>> >
>> >
>> > [3]
>> >
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1887?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>> >
>> >
>> > [4]
>> >
>> >
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Git+Branching+and+Release+Line+Management
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

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