nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edgardo Vega <edgardo.v...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NiFi 0.7.0 and 1.0.0
Date Wed, 01 Jun 2016 12:28:46 GMT
What ever happened to the following from the 6-12 month roadmap that was
posted a while ago?

Deterministic Template Export
    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-826

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:07 PM, Joe Witt <joe.witt@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll take release manager duties for 0.7.0 unless someone else with
> committer status really wants to give it a go.
>
> Right now there are 43 tickets assigned to it.  I'll go through and
> punt ones on there that seem stalled or deferrable.  Of course, if
> there are any that are particularly important to something you might
> need please do comment to that effect.  As we close down on number of
> 0.7 tickets I'll kick off the proceedings.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI/fixforversion/12335078
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Ryan H <rhendrickson.work@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>



-- 
Cheers,

Edgardo

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