[DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
44 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Team,

There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line now
and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.  There
are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.

I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
would like to take that on please advise.

Thanks
Joe
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

trkurc
Administrator
Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.

On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Team,
>
> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line now
> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.  There
> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
>
> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
> would like to take that on please advise.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Team,

There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
>
> On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line now
>> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.  There
>> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
>> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
>>
>> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
>> would like to take that on please advise.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Edgardo Vega
Joe,

There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next bunch of
days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.

Cheers,

Edgardo

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Team,
>
> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Team,
> >>
> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line now
> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.  There
> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
> >>
> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
> >> would like to take that on please advise.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
>



--
Cheers,

Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
had fix versions removed.

We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next bunch of
> days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
>> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
>> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
>> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
>> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
>> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
>> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
>> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
>> >
>> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Team,
>> >>
>> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line now
>> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.  There
>> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
>> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
>> >>
>> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
>> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Percivall
Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests that are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.

I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count) should be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In order to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days.

Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a 1.1.0 release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already open so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.

 
Joe

- - - - - -
Joseph Percivall
linkedin.com/in/Percivall
e: [hidden email]



On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:



There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
had fix versions removed.

We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.

Thanks
Joe


On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next bunch of
> days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
>> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
>> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
>> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
>> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
>> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
>> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
>> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
>> >
>> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Team,
>> >>
>> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line now
>> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.  There
>> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
>> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
>> >>
>> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
>> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Edgardo Vega
Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently open.

Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe to be
extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a forcing
function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more willing to
contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted and
merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress is a
great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with the
community.

There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at all. I
found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a core
contributor if they think it worthwhile.

I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional code. It
was a great PR experience.

Cheers,

Edgardo



On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <[hidden email].
invalid> wrote:

> Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests that
> are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
>
> I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count) should
> be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
> significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In order
> to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days.
>
> Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes
> contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a 1.1.0
> release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus
> though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already open
> so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>
>
> Joe
>
> - - - - - -
> Joseph Percivall
> linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> e: [hidden email]
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
> opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
> had fix versions removed.
>
> We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
> reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next bunch
> of
> > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Edgardo
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Team,
> >>
> >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
> >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
> >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
> >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
> >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
> >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
> >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
> >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Team,
> >> >>
> >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line
> now
> >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.
> There
> >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
> >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
> >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Joe
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Edgardo
>



--
Cheers,

Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Edgardo,

You are correct that proper handling of pull requests is an important
mechanism for the health of the community, bringing along new
committers, and for adding benefit to the application. We've been
flagging this as an important item to track and focus on in our
quarterly board reports for the past six months.  Frankly, I am
extremely proud of the community and how much effort it puts into
working with new and frequent contributors alike.  This tweet and the
response to it are things I think are wonderful examples of how this
community is doing.

  https://twitter.com/ktseytlin/status/786656997978419200
  https://twitter.com/DanRosanova/status/786759566809702401

It is important though to also take a closer look at what is behind
those PRs.  As you mentioned main nifi developers and community
engagement keep in mind that on a very conservative basis over more
than 50 of those presently outstanding 77 PRs are from regular
community contributors.  The NiFi community follows a 'review then
commit' model which means that no matter whether you're a new
contributor or whether you're a PMC member and have been working on
the project for more than 10 years your contributions go through the
same process of peer review.  In the past twelve months we have had
about 92 different contributors and the month over month curve for
unique contributors is growing.  Therefore, it is going to be
increasingly important we have a good community driven process in
place.

You brought up a couple of good points about the nature of the pull
requests and I'll add some others.  All of which we need to discuss
and track over time.
1) They could be stalled by the originator
2) They could be stalled by license issues (very common)
3) They could be slowed by lacking alignment to a JIRA
4) We should consider some age-based kick out mechanism
5) Some PRs require far more testing than others and that could even
include testing which requires money
...and there are other considerations.

Some other important data points to keep in mind.  In my opinion the
number of open pull requests is an indicator worth observing but there
are other indicators that are stronger.  I just checked a few popular
open source projects in terms of unique contributors to see their
outstanding PR counts:

Apache Spark = 472
Apache Kafka = 275
Apache Storm = 125
Apache Flink = 143

There are also some examples of really awesome communities that have
been around for quite a while and have gotten the PR submission/review
game down solid, HBase for example.  We should and do look to them for
examples of what we can be doing to get better.

This community, like all apache way governed communities, is a
reflection of what each of us puts into it.  I am confident this
community puts a great deal of effort and emphasis into honoring and
encouraging contributors new and old and is working to improve that
even more.

Thanks
Joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently open.
>
> Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe to be
> extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a forcing
> function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more willing to
> contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted and
> merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress is a
> great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with the
> community.
>
> There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at all. I
> found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
> would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
> sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
> closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a core
> contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>
> I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
> review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional code. It
> was a great PR experience.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <[hidden email].
> invalid> wrote:
>
>> Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests that
>> are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
>>
>> I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count) should
>> be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
>> significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In order
>> to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days.
>>
>> Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes
>> contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a 1.1.0
>> release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus
>> though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already open
>> so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> - - - - - -
>> Joseph Percivall
>> linkedin.com/in/Percivall
>> e: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
>> opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
>> had fix versions removed.
>>
>> We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
>> reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > Joe,
>> >
>> > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next bunch
>> of
>> > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Edgardo
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Team,
>> >>
>> >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
>> >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
>> >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
>> >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
>> >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
>> >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
>> >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
>> >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Team,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line
>> now
>> >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.
>> There
>> >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.  I'm
>> >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone else
>> >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> Joe
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Edgardo
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Andre
In reply to this post by Edgardo Vega
Edgardo,

Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I can
share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having already
taken many of the steps you suggest.

However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be
seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us
will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers and
some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.

Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time and
we are working to improve this pipeline.

It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs performing
a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current
code base.

In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled and
superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).

Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a series
of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a
release sooner rather than later.

Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to
have you here.

Andre

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently open.
>
> Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe to be
> extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a forcing
> function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more willing to
> contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted and
> merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress is a
> great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with the
> community.
>
> There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at all. I
> found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
> would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
> sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
> closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a core
> contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>
> I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
> review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional code. It
> was a great PR experience.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <[hidden email].
> invalid> wrote:
>
> > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests that
> > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
> >
> > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count)
> should
> > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
> > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In
> order
> > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days.
> >
> > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes
> > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a
> 1.1.0
> > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus
> > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already open
> > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > - - - - - -
> > Joseph Percivall
> > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> > e: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
> > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
> > had fix versions removed.
> >
> > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
> > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > Joe,
> > >
> > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next
> bunch
> > of
> > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Edgardo
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Team,
> > >>
> > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would like
> > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
> > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
> > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week release
> > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
> > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
> > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a lot
> > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >> Joe
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Team,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master line
> > now
> > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.
> > There
> > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.
> I'm
> > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where appropriate.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone
> else
> > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks
> > >> >> Joe
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Edgardo
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Edgardo Vega
I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was try to
squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the important
bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the release
notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is really
huge.

I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in the
mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only trying to
strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do better.
I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and make it
better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
community is.

Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen the
nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the participation in
the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't want to
see that happen here.

Cheers,

Edgardo




On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Edgardo,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I can
> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having already
> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>
> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be
> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us
> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers and
> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>
> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time and
> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>
> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs performing
> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current
> code base.
>
> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled and
> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>
> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a series
> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a
> release sooner rather than later.
>
> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to
> have you here.
>
> Andre
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently open.
> >
> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe to
> be
> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a
> forcing
> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more willing
> to
> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted
> and
> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress
> is a
> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with the
> > community.
> >
> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at all.
> I
> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a core
> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
> >
> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional code.
> It
> > was a great PR experience.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Edgardo
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <[hidden email].
> > invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests
> that
> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
> > >
> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count)
> > should
> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In
> > order
> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days.
> > >
> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes
> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a
> > 1.1.0
> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus
> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already
> open
> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > > - - - - - -
> > > Joseph Percivall
> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> > > e: [hidden email]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
> > > had fix versions removed.
> > >
> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Joe,
> > > >
> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next
> > bunch
> > > of
> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Edgardo
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Team,
> > > >>
> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would
> like
> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week
> release
> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a
> lot
> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >> Joe
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> Team,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master
> line
> > > now
> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.
> > > There
> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.
> > I'm
> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
> appropriate.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone
> > else
> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Thanks
> > > >> >> Joe
> > > >> >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Edgardo
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Edgardo
> >
>



--
Cheers,

Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Edgardo,

You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
through review.

Thanks
Joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was try to
> squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the important
> bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the release
> notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is really
> huge.
>
> I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in the
> mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only trying to
> strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do better.
> I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and make it
> better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
> community is.
>
> Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen the
> nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
> reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the participation in
> the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't want to
> see that happen here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Edgardo,
>>
>> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I can
>> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having already
>> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>>
>> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be
>> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us
>> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers and
>> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>>
>> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time and
>> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>>
>> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs performing
>> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current
>> code base.
>>
>> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled and
>> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>>
>> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a series
>> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a
>> release sooner rather than later.
>>
>> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to
>> have you here.
>>
>> Andre
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently open.
>> >
>> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe to
>> be
>> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a
>> forcing
>> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more willing
>> to
>> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted
>> and
>> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress
>> is a
>> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with the
>> > community.
>> >
>> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at all.
>> I
>> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
>> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
>> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
>> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a core
>> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>> >
>> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
>> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional code.
>> It
>> > was a great PR experience.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Edgardo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <[hidden email].
>> > invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests
>> that
>> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
>> > >
>> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count)
>> > should
>> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
>> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor. In
>> > order
>> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple days.
>> > >
>> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug fixes
>> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up a
>> > 1.1.0
>> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added bonus
>> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already
>> open
>> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Joe
>> > >
>> > > - - - - - -
>> > > Joseph Percivall
>> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
>> > > e: [hidden email]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
>> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
>> > > had fix versions removed.
>> > >
>> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
>> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks
>> > > Joe
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Joe,
>> > > >
>> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next
>> > bunch
>> > > of
>> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgardo
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Team,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would
>> like
>> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based on
>> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache NiFi
>> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week
>> release
>> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0 this
>> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on this. In
>> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a
>> lot
>> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks
>> > > >> Joe
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for it.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> Team,
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master
>> line
>> > > now
>> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a release.
>> > > There
>> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are open.
>> > I'm
>> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
>> appropriate.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if someone
>> > else
>> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> Thanks
>> > > >> >> Joe
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Cheers,
>> > > >
>> > > > Edgardo
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Edgardo
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Edgardo Vega
Joe,

Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an example. All
mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.

Cheers,

Edgardo

On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Edgardo,
>
> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
> through review.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was try
> to
> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
> important
> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the release
> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is really
> > huge.
> >
> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in the
> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only trying to
> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
> better.
> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and make
> it
> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
> > community is.
> >
> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen the
> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the participation
> in
> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't want
> to
> > see that happen here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Edgardo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> >> Edgardo,
> >>
> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I
> can
> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
> already
> >> taken many of the steps you suggest.
> >>
> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be
> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us
> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers
> and
> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
> >>
> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time
> and
> >> we are working to improve this pipeline.
> >>
> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
> performing
> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current
> >> code base.
> >>
> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled
> and
> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
> >>
> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a
> series
> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a
> >> release sooner rather than later.
> >>
> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to
> >> have you here.
> >>
> >> Andre
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently
> open.
> >> >
> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe
> to
> >> be
> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a
> >> forcing
> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
> willing
> >> to
> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted
> >> and
> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress
> >> is a
> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with
> the
> >> > community.
> >> >
> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at
> all.
> >> I
> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a
> core
> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
> >> >
> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional
> code.
> >> It
> >> > was a great PR experience.
> >> >
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Edgardo
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
> >> > invalid> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests
> >> that
> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
> >> > >
> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count)
> >> > should
> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor.
> In
> >> > order
> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple
> days.
> >> > >
> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug
> fixes
> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up
> a
> >> > 1.1.0
> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added
> bonus
> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already
> >> open
> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Joe
> >> > >
> >> > > - - - - - -
> >> > > Joseph Percivall
> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> >> > > e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
> >> > > had fix versions removed.
> >> > >
> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks
> >> > > Joe
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > Joe,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next
> >> > bunch
> >> > > of
> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Edgardo
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Team,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would
> >> like
> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based
> on
> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache
> NiFi
> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week
> >> release
> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0
> this
> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
> this. In
> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a
> >> lot
> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks
> >> > > >> Joe
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for
> it.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >> Team,
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master
> >> line
> >> > > now
> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
> release.
> >> > > There
> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are
> open.
> >> > I'm
> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
> >> appropriate.
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
> someone
> >> > else
> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >> >> Thanks
> >> > > >> >> Joe
> >> > > >> >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Cheers,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Edgardo
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Cheers,
> >> >
> >> > Edgardo
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Edgardo
>


--
Cheers,

Edgardo

Sent from Gmail Mobile
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Team,

There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
list grow.

Thanks
joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an example. All
> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Edgardo,
>>
>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
>> through review.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was try
>> to
>> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
>> important
>> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the release
>> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is really
>> > huge.
>> >
>> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in the
>> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only trying to
>> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
>> better.
>> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and make
>> it
>> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
>> > community is.
>> >
>> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen the
>> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
>> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the participation
>> in
>> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't want
>> to
>> > see that happen here.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Edgardo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Edgardo,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I
>> can
>> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
>> already
>> >> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>> >>
>> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be
>> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us
>> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers
>> and
>> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>> >>
>> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time
>> and
>> >> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>> >>
>> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
>> performing
>> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current
>> >> code base.
>> >>
>> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled
>> and
>> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>> >>
>> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a
>> series
>> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a
>> >> release sooner rather than later.
>> >>
>> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to
>> >> have you here.
>> >>
>> >> Andre
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently
>> open.
>> >> >
>> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe
>> to
>> >> be
>> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a
>> >> forcing
>> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
>> willing
>> >> to
>> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted
>> >> and
>> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress
>> >> is a
>> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with
>> the
>> >> > community.
>> >> >
>> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at
>> all.
>> >> I
>> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
>> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
>> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
>> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a
>> core
>> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>> >> >
>> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
>> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional
>> code.
>> >> It
>> >> > was a great PR experience.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> > Edgardo
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
>> >> > invalid> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests
>> >> that
>> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count)
>> >> > should
>> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
>> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor.
>> In
>> >> > order
>> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple
>> days.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug
>> fixes
>> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up
>> a
>> >> > 1.1.0
>> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added
>> bonus
>> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already
>> >> open
>> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Joe
>> >> > >
>> >> > > - - - - - -
>> >> > > Joseph Percivall
>> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
>> >> > > e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
>> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
>> >> > > had fix versions removed.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
>> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks
>> >> > > Joe
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> > > > Joe,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next
>> >> > bunch
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Edgardo
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Team,
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would
>> >> like
>> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based
>> on
>> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache
>> NiFi
>> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week
>> >> release
>> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0
>> this
>> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
>> this. In
>> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a
>> >> lot
>> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> Thanks
>> >> > > >> Joe
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for
>> it.
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> > > >> >
>> >> > > >> >> Team,
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master
>> >> line
>> >> > > now
>> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
>> release.
>> >> > > There
>> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are
>> open.
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
>> >> appropriate.
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
>> someone
>> >> > else
>> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >> >> Thanks
>> >> > > >> >> Joe
>> >> > > >> >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --
>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Edgardo
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> > Edgardo
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Edgardo
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Team,

Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Team,
>
> There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
> avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
> Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
> able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
> list grow.
>
> Thanks
> joe
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an example. All
>> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Edgardo
>>
>> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Edgardo,
>>>
>>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
>>> through review.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was try
>>> to
>>> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
>>> important
>>> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the release
>>> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is really
>>> > huge.
>>> >
>>> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in the
>>> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only trying to
>>> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
>>> better.
>>> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and make
>>> it
>>> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
>>> > community is.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen the
>>> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
>>> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the participation
>>> in
>>> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't want
>>> to
>>> > see that happen here.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Edgardo
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Edgardo,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a committer I
>>> can
>>> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
>>> already
>>> >> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>>> >>
>>> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should not be
>>> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most of us
>>> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our peers
>>> and
>>> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>>> >>
>>> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long time
>>> and
>>> >> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>>> >>
>>> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
>>> performing
>>> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the current
>>> >> code base.
>>> >>
>>> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of stalled
>>> and
>>> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>>> >>
>>> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a
>>> series
>>> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from a
>>> >> release sooner rather than later.
>>> >>
>>> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is good to
>>> >> have you here.
>>> >>
>>> >> Andre
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently
>>> open.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I believe
>>> to
>>> >> be
>>> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be a
>>> >> forcing
>>> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
>>> willing
>>> >> to
>>> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able accepted
>>> >> and
>>> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in progress
>>> >> is a
>>> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged with
>>> the
>>> >> > community.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers at
>>> all.
>>> >> I
>>> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't think I
>>> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get that
>>> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule about
>>> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over by a
>>> core
>>> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick to
>>> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional
>>> code.
>>> >> It
>>> >> > was a great PR experience.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Cheers,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Edgardo
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
>>> >> > invalid> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull Requests
>>> >> that
>>> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 version.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR count)
>>> >> > should
>>> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
>>> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and contributor.
>>> In
>>> >> > order
>>> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a couple
>>> days.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug
>>> fixes
>>> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth holding up
>>> a
>>> >> > 1.1.0
>>> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an added
>>> bonus
>>> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs already
>>> >> open
>>> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Joe
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > - - - - - -
>>> >> > > Joseph Percivall
>>> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
>>> >> > > e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
>>> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or just
>>> >> > > had fix versions removed.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal with
>>> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Thanks
>>> >> > > Joe
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>>> >> > > wrote:
>>> >> > > > Joe,
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the next
>>> >> > bunch
>>> >> > > of
>>> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Cheers,
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Edgardo
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >> Team,
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I would
>>> >> like
>>> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much based
>>> on
>>> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new Apache
>>> NiFi
>>> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 week
>>> >> release
>>> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi 1.2.0
>>> this
>>> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
>>> this. In
>>> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be seeing a
>>> >> lot
>>> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> Thanks
>>> >> > > >> Joe
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing for
>>> it.
>>> >> > > >> >
>>> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
>>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>> >> > > >> >
>>> >> > > >> >> Team,
>>> >> > > >> >>
>>> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the master
>>> >> line
>>> >> > > now
>>> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
>>> release.
>>> >> > > There
>>> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are
>>> open.
>>> >> > I'm
>>> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
>>> >> appropriate.
>>> >> > > >> >>
>>> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
>>> someone
>>> >> > else
>>> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>>> >> > > >> >>
>>> >> > > >> >> Thanks
>>> >> > > >> >> Joe
>>> >> > > >> >>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > --
>>> >> > > > Cheers,
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Edgardo
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > Cheers,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Edgardo
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Edgardo
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Edgardo
>>
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Ryan Ward
Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Team,
>
> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
> release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
> what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
> a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
> > avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
> > Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
> > able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
> > list grow.
> >
> > Thanks
> > joe
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an example.
> All
> >> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Edgardo
> >>
> >> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Edgardo,
> >>>
> >>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
> >>> through review.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was
> try
> >>> to
> >>> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
> >>> important
> >>> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the
> release
> >>> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is
> really
> >>> > huge.
> >>> >
> >>> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in
> the
> >>> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only
> trying to
> >>> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
> >>> better.
> >>> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and
> make
> >>> it
> >>> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
> >>> > community is.
> >>> >
> >>> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen
> the
> >>> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
> >>> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the
> participation
> >>> in
> >>> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't
> want
> >>> to
> >>> > see that happen here.
> >>> >
> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> >
> >>> > Edgardo
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Edgardo,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a
> committer I
> >>> can
> >>> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
> >>> already
> >>> >> taken many of the steps you suggest.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should
> not be
> >>> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most
> of us
> >>> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our
> peers
> >>> and
> >>> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long
> time
> >>> and
> >>> >> we are working to improve this pipeline.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
> >>> performing
> >>> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the
> current
> >>> >> code base.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of
> stalled
> >>> and
> >>> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a
> >>> series
> >>> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from
> a
> >>> >> release sooner rather than later.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is
> good to
> >>> >> have you here.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Andre
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <
> [hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently
> >>> open.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I
> believe
> >>> to
> >>> >> be
> >>> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be
> a
> >>> >> forcing
> >>> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
> >>> willing
> >>> >> to
> >>> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able
> accepted
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in
> progress
> >>> >> is a
> >>> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged
> with
> >>> the
> >>> >> > community.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers
> at
> >>> all.
> >>> >> I
> >>> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't
> think I
> >>> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get
> that
> >>> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule
> about
> >>> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over
> by a
> >>> core
> >>> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick
> to
> >>> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional
> >>> code.
> >>> >> It
> >>> >> > was a great PR experience.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Cheers,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Edgardo
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
> >>> >> > invalid> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull
> Requests
> >>> >> that
> >>> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0
> version.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR
> count)
> >>> >> > should
> >>> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
> >>> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and
> contributor.
> >>> In
> >>> >> > order
> >>> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a
> couple
> >>> days.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug
> >>> fixes
> >>> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth
> holding up
> >>> a
> >>> >> > 1.1.0
> >>> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an
> added
> >>> bonus
> >>> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs
> already
> >>> >> open
> >>> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Joe
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > - - - - - -
> >>> >> > > Joseph Percivall
> >>> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> >>> >> > > e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
> >>> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or
> just
> >>> >> > > had fix versions removed.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal
> with
> >>> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > Thanks
> >>> >> > > Joe
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
> >>> >> > > wrote:
> >>> >> > > > Joe,
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the
> next
> >>> >> > bunch
> >>> >> > > of
> >>> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > Cheers,
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > Edgardo
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > >> Team,
> >>> >> > > >>
> >>> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I
> would
> >>> >> like
> >>> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much
> based
> >>> on
> >>> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new
> Apache
> >>> NiFi
> >>> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8
> week
> >>> >> release
> >>> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi
> 1.2.0
> >>> this
> >>> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
> >>> this. In
> >>> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be
> seeing a
> >>> >> lot
> >>> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
> >>> >> > > >>
> >>> >> > > >> Thanks
> >>> >> > > >> Joe
> >>> >> > > >>
> >>> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <
> [hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing
> for
> >>> it.
> >>> >> > > >> >
> >>> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>> >> > > >> >
> >>> >> > > >> >> Team,
> >>> >> > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the
> master
> >>> >> line
> >>> >> > > now
> >>> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
> >>> release.
> >>> >> > > There
> >>> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are
> >>> open.
> >>> >> > I'm
> >>> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
> >>> >> appropriate.
> >>> >> > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
> >>> someone
> >>> >> > else
> >>> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
> >>> >> > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > >> >> Thanks
> >>> >> > > >> >> Joe
> >>> >> > > >> >>
> >>> >> > > >>
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > --
> >>> >> > > > Cheers,
> >>> >> > > >
> >>> >> > > > Edgardo
> >>> >> > >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > --
> >>> >> > Cheers,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Edgardo
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Cheers,
> >>> >
> >>> > Edgardo
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Edgardo
> >>
> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Ryan

Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and
start a vote in the next week or two at most.

I'm going through the tickets again now.  There is also a new issue of
the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and
becoming Category-X.  Am looking into that now.

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1?
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
>> release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
>> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
>> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
>> what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
>> a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Team,
>> >
>> > There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
>> > avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
>> > Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
>> > able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
>> > list grow.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > joe
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Joe,
>> >>
>> >> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an example.
>> All
>> >> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Edgardo
>> >>
>> >> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Edgardo,
>> >>>
>> >>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
>> >>> through review.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Joe
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was
>> try
>> >>> to
>> >>> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
>> >>> important
>> >>> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the
>> release
>> >>> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is
>> really
>> >>> > huge.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in
>> the
>> >>> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only
>> trying to
>> >>> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
>> >>> better.
>> >>> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and
>> make
>> >>> it
>> >>> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this
>> >>> > community is.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen
>> the
>> >>> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was
>> >>> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the
>> participation
>> >>> in
>> >>> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't
>> want
>> >>> to
>> >>> > see that happen here.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cheers,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Edgardo
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Edgardo,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a
>> committer I
>> >>> can
>> >>> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
>> >>> already
>> >>> >> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should
>> not be
>> >>> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most
>> of us
>> >>> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our
>> peers
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long
>> time
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
>> >>> performing
>> >>> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the
>> current
>> >>> >> code base.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of
>> stalled
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a
>> >>> series
>> >>> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from
>> a
>> >>> >> release sooner rather than later.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is
>> good to
>> >>> >> have you here.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Andre
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently
>> >>> open.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I
>> believe
>> >>> to
>> >>> >> be
>> >>> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be
>> a
>> >>> >> forcing
>> >>> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
>> >>> willing
>> >>> >> to
>> >>> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able
>> accepted
>> >>> >> and
>> >>> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in
>> progress
>> >>> >> is a
>> >>> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged
>> with
>> >>> the
>> >>> >> > community.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers
>> at
>> >>> all.
>> >>> >> I
>> >>> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't
>> think I
>> >>> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get
>> that
>> >>> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule
>> about
>> >>> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over
>> by a
>> >>> core
>> >>> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick
>> to
>> >>> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional
>> >>> code.
>> >>> >> It
>> >>> >> > was a great PR experience.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Cheers,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Edgardo
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
>> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
>> >>> >> > invalid> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull
>> Requests
>> >>> >> that
>> >>> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0
>> version.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR
>> count)
>> >>> >> > should
>> >>> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a
>> >>> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and
>> contributor.
>> >>> In
>> >>> >> > order
>> >>> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a
>> couple
>> >>> days.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug
>> >>> fixes
>> >>> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth
>> holding up
>> >>> a
>> >>> >> > 1.1.0
>> >>> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an
>> added
>> >>> bonus
>> >>> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs
>> already
>> >>> >> open
>> >>> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Joe
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > - - - - - -
>> >>> >> > > Joseph Percivall
>> >>> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
>> >>> >> > > e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs
>> >>> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or
>> just
>> >>> >> > > had fix versions removed.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal
>> with
>> >>> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Thanks
>> >>> >> > > Joe
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > Joe,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the
>> next
>> >>> >> > bunch
>> >>> >> > > of
>> >>> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > Edgardo
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >> Team,
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I
>> would
>> >>> >> like
>> >>> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much
>> based
>> >>> on
>> >>> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new
>> Apache
>> >>> NiFi
>> >>> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8
>> week
>> >>> >> release
>> >>> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi
>> 1.2.0
>> >>> this
>> >>> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
>> >>> this. In
>> >>> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be
>> seeing a
>> >>> >> lot
>> >>> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >> Thanks
>> >>> >> > > >> Joe
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing
>> for
>> >>> it.
>> >>> >> > > >> >
>> >>> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >> >
>> >>> >> > > >> >> Team,
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the
>> master
>> >>> >> line
>> >>> >> > > now
>> >>> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
>> >>> release.
>> >>> >> > > There
>> >>> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are
>> >>> open.
>> >>> >> > I'm
>> >>> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
>> >>> >> appropriate.
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
>> >>> someone
>> >>> >> > else
>> >>> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >> >> Thanks
>> >>> >> > > >> >> Joe
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > --
>> >>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > Edgardo
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > --
>> >>> >> > Cheers,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Edgardo
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Cheers,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Edgardo
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Edgardo
>> >>
>> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
Team

Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to
1.1.0.  Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work
to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had.  The most notable
impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new
nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default
build.  It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but
we won't distribute binaries that have it.

I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items.

I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone
have any outstanding items?

Thanks
Joe

On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ryan

Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and
start a vote in the next week or two at most.

I'm going through the tickets again now.  There is also a new issue of
the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and
becoming Category-X.  Am looking into that now.

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1?
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
>> release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
>> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
>> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
>> what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
>> a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Team,
>> >
>> > There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
>> > avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
>> > Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
>> > able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
>> > list grow.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > joe
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Joe,
>> >>
>> >> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an
example.

>> All
>> >> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Edgardo
>> >>
>> >> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Edgardo,
>> >>>
>> >>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
>> >>> through review.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Joe
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal
was

>> try
>> >>> to
>> >>> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
>> >>> important
>> >>> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the
>> release
>> >>> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is
>> really
>> >>> > huge.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in
>> the
>> >>> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only
>> trying to
>> >>> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
>> >>> better.
>> >>> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and
>> make
>> >>> it
>> >>> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great
this
>> >>> > community is.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to
strengthen
>> the
>> >>> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it
was

>> >>> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the
>> participation
>> >>> in
>> >>> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't
>> want
>> >>> to
>> >>> > see that happen here.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Cheers,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Edgardo
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Edgardo,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a
>> committer I
>> >>> can
>> >>> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
>> >>> already
>> >>> >> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should
>> not be
>> >>> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most
>> of us
>> >>> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our
>> peers
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long
>> time
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
>> >>> performing
>> >>> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the
>> current
>> >>> >> code base.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of
>> stalled
>> >>> and
>> >>> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master
contain a
>> >>> series
>> >>> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit
from

>> a
>> >>> >> release sooner rather than later.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is
>> good to
>> >>> >> have you here.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Andre
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are
currently
>> >>> open.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I
>> believe
>> >>> to
>> >>> >> be
>> >>> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could
be

>> a
>> >>> >> forcing
>> >>> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
>> >>> willing
>> >>> >> to
>> >>> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able
>> accepted
>> >>> >> and
>> >>> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in
>> progress
>> >>> >> is a
>> >>> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged
>> with
>> >>> the
>> >>> >> > community.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers
>> at
>> >>> all.
>> >>> >> I
>> >>> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't
>> think I
>> >>> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get
>> that
>> >>> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule
>> about
>> >>> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over
>> by a
>> >>> core
>> >>> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was
quick
>> to
>> >>> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some
additional

>> >>> code.
>> >>> >> It
>> >>> >> > was a great PR experience.
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Cheers,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Edgardo
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
>> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
>> >>> >> > invalid> wrote:
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull
>> Requests
>> >>> >> that
>> >>> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0
>> version.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR
>> count)
>> >>> >> > should
>> >>> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing
takes a
>> >>> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and
>> contributor.
>> >>> In
>> >>> >> > order
>> >>> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a
>> couple
>> >>> days.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and
bug

>> >>> fixes
>> >>> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth
>> holding up
>> >>> a
>> >>> >> > 1.1.0
>> >>> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an
>> added
>> >>> bonus
>> >>> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs
>> already
>> >>> >> open
>> >>> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Joe
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > - - - - - -
>> >>> >> > > Joseph Percivall
>> >>> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall
>> >>> >> > > e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+
JIRAs
>> >>> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed
or
>> just
>> >>> >> > > had fix versions removed.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to
deal

>> with
>> >>> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > Thanks
>> >>> >> > > Joe
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>> >>> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> > > wrote:
>> >>> >> > > > Joe,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over
the

>> next
>> >>> >> > bunch
>> >>> >> > > of
>> >>> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > Edgardo
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >> Team,
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I
>> would
>> >>> >> like
>> >>> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much
>> based
>> >>> on
>> >>> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new
>> Apache
>> >>> NiFi
>> >>> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8
>> week
>> >>> >> release
>> >>> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi
>> 1.2.0
>> >>> this
>> >>> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
>> >>> this. In
>> >>> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be
>> seeing a
>> >>> >> lot
>> >>> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >> Thanks
>> >>> >> > > >> Joe
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <
>> [hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>>
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing
>> for
>> >>> it.
>> >>> >> > > >> >
>> >>> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
>> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >>> >> > > >> >
>> >>> >> > > >> >> Team,
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the
>> master
>> >>> >> line
>> >>> >> > > now
>> >>> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
>> >>> release.
>> >>> >> > > There
>> >>> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which
are

>> >>> open.
>> >>> >> > I'm
>> >>> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
>> >>> >> appropriate.
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
>> >>> someone
>> >>> >> > else
>> >>> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise.
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >> >> Thanks
>> >>> >> > > >> >> Joe
>> >>> >> > > >> >>
>> >>> >> > > >>
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > --
>> >>> >> > > > Cheers,
>> >>> >> > > >
>> >>> >> > > > Edgardo
>> >>> >> > >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > --
>> >>> >> > Cheers,
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> > Edgardo
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > --
>> >>> > Cheers,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Edgardo
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Edgardo
>> >>
>> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Andy LoPresto-2
I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we investigated some alternate TLS config options for the new version of the client library. 

Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using Johnzon [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the mailing list thread?



Andy LoPresto
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Team

Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to
1.1.0.  Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work
to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had.  The most notable
impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new
nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default
build.  It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but
we won't distribute binaries that have it.

I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items.

I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone
have any outstanding items?

Thanks
Joe

On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ryan

Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and
start a vote in the next week or two at most.

I'm going through the tickets again now.  There is also a new issue of
the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and
becoming Category-X.  Am looking into that now.

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[hidden email]> wrote:
Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Team,

Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Team,

There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
list grow.

Thanks
joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Joe,

Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an
example.
All
mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.

Cheers,

Edgardo

On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Edgardo,

You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
through review.

Thanks
Joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>> wrote:
I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal
was
try
to
squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
important
bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the
release
notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is
really
huge.

I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in
the
mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only
trying to
strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
better.
I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and
make
it
better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great
this
community is.

Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to
strengthen
the
nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it
was
reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the
participation
in
the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't
want
to
see that happen here.

Cheers,

Edgardo




On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
<javascript:;>> wrote:

Edgardo,

Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a
committer I
can
share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
already
taken many of the steps you suggest.

However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should
not be
seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most
of us
will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our
peers
and
some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.

Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long
time
and
we are working to improve this pipeline.

It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
performing
a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the
current
code base.

In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of
stalled
and
superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).

Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master
contain a
series
of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit
from
a
release sooner rather than later.

Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is
good to
have you here.

Andre

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:

Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are
currently
open.

Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I
believe
to
be
extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could
be
a
forcing
function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
willing
to
contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able
accepted
and
merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in
progress
is a
great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged
with
the
community.

There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers
at
all.
I
found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't
think I
would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get
that
sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule
about
closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over
by a
core
contributor if they think it worthwhile.

I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was
quick
to
review, provided great comments, testing, and even some
additional
code.
It
was a great PR experience.

Cheers,

Edgardo



On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
[hidden email] <javascript:;>.
invalid> wrote:

Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull
Requests
that
are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0
version.

I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR
count)
should
be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing
takes a
significant amount of time from both the reviewer and
contributor.
In
order
to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a
couple
days.

Also there has already been a lot of great new features and
bug
fixes
contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth
holding up
a
1.1.0
release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an
added
bonus
though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs
already
open
so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.


Joe

- - - - - -
Joseph Percivall
linkedin.com/in/Percivall
e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>



On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:



There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+
JIRAs
opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed
or
just
had fix versions removed.

We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to
deal
with
reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.

Thanks
Joe


On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
wrote:
Joe,

There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over
the
next
bunch
of
days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.

Cheers,

Edgardo

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:

Team,

There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I
would
like
to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much
based
on
where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new
Apache
NiFi
1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8
week
release
schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi
1.2.0
this
way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
this. In
the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be
seeing a
lot
of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:
Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing
for
it.

On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
<javascript:;>> wrote:

Team,

There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the
master
line
now
and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
release.
There
are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which
are
open.
I'm
going to go through them and remove fix versions where
appropriate.

I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
someone
else
would like to take that on please advise.

Thanks
Joe





--
Cheers,

Edgardo




--
Cheers,

Edgardo





--
Cheers,

Edgardo



--
Cheers,

Edgardo

Sent from Gmail Mobile



signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Andy LoPresto-2
I understand there was a discussion thread within the NiFi community for this as well and I missed responding to that at that time. It just seems to me like JSON processing is necessary for GetTwitter, which is incredibly useful for demonstrating NiFi’s ability to read from a high volume stream out of the box. With NIFI-3019 (Remove GetTwitter from default build), is there any related effort to substitute an acceptable replacement JSON library to restore this functionality?

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019

Andy LoPresto
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Andy LoPresto <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we investigated some alternate TLS config options for the new version of the client library. 

Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using Johnzon [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the mailing list thread?



Andy LoPresto
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Team

Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to
1.1.0.  Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work
to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had.  The most notable
impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new
nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default
build.  It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but
we won't distribute binaries that have it.

I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items.

I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone
have any outstanding items?

Thanks
Joe

On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ryan

Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and
start a vote in the next week or two at most.

I'm going through the tickets again now.  There is also a new issue of
the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and
becoming Category-X.  Am looking into that now.

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[hidden email]> wrote:
Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1?

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Team,

Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Team,

There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
list grow.

Thanks
joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Joe,

Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an
example.
All
mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.

Cheers,

Edgardo

On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

Edgardo,

You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
through review.

Thanks
Joe

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>> wrote:
I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal
was
try
to
squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
important
bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the
release
notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is
really
huge.

I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in
the
mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only
trying to
strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
better.
I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and
make
it
better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great
this
community is.

Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to
strengthen
the
nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it
was
reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the
participation
in
the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't
want
to
see that happen here.

Cheers,

Edgardo




On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
<javascript:;>> wrote:

Edgardo,

Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a
committer I
can
share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
already
taken many of the steps you suggest.

However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should
not be
seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most
of us
will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our
peers
and
some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.

Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long
time
and
we are working to improve this pipeline.

It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
performing
a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the
current
code base.

In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of
stalled
and
superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).

Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master
contain a
series
of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit
from
a
release sooner rather than later.

Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is
good to
have you here.

Andre

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:

Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are
currently
open.

Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I
believe
to
be
extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could
be
a
forcing
function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
willing
to
contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able
accepted
and
merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in
progress
is a
great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged
with
the
community.

There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers
at
all.
I
found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't
think I
would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get
that
sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule
about
closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over
by a
core
contributor if they think it worthwhile.

I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was
quick
to
review, provided great comments, testing, and even some
additional
code.
It
was a great PR experience.

Cheers,

Edgardo



On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
[hidden email] <javascript:;>.
invalid> wrote:

Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull
Requests
that
are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0
version.

I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR
count)
should
be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing
takes a
significant amount of time from both the reviewer and
contributor.
In
order
to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a
couple
days.

Also there has already been a lot of great new features and
bug
fixes
contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth
holding up
a
1.1.0
release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an
added
bonus
though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs
already
open
so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.


Joe

- - - - - -
Joseph Percivall
linkedin.com/in/Percivall
e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>



On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:



There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+
JIRAs
opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed
or
just
had fix versions removed.

We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to
deal
with
reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.

Thanks
Joe


On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
[hidden email] <javascript:;>>
wrote:
Joe,

There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over
the
next
bunch
of
days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.

Cheers,

Edgardo

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:

Team,

There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I
would
like
to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much
based
on
where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new
Apache
NiFi
1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8
week
release
schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi
1.2.0
this
way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
this. In
the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be
seeing a
lot
of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <
[hidden email]
<javascript:;>>
wrote:
Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing
for
it.

On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
<javascript:;>> wrote:

Team,

There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the
master
line
now
and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
release.
There
are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which
are
open.
I'm
going to go through them and remove fix versions where
appropriate.

I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
someone
else
would like to take that on please advise.

Thanks
Joe





--
Cheers,

Edgardo




--
Cheers,

Edgardo





--
Cheers,

Edgardo



--
Cheers,

Edgardo

Sent from Gmail Mobile




signature.asc (859 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Joe Witt
The code is within the twitter4j library itself.  I filed a request to
twitter4jg.  The most likely case is we will need to submit a PR to them.
However, I don't see this as something that should delay the release.  We
can provide instructions for folks wanting to use the processor during the
time we cannot make it available in a convenient manner.  I will provide a
meaningful comment about this in release notes and pointers on what folks
can do in the meantime.

On Nov 15, 2016 7:41 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I understand there was a discussion thread within the NiFi community for
> this as well and I missed responding to that at that time. It just seems to
> me like JSON processing is necessary for GetTwitter, which is incredibly
> useful for demonstrating NiFi’s ability to read from a high volume stream
> out of the box. With NIFI-3019 (Remove GetTwitter from default build), is
> there any related effort to substitute an acceptable replacement JSON
> library to restore this functionality?
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019
>
> Andy LoPresto
> [hidden email]
> *[hidden email] <[hidden email]>*
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Andy LoPresto <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and
> NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we
> investigated some alternate TLS config options for the new version of the
> client library.
>
> Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using
> Johnzon [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the mailing
> list thread?
>
> [1] https://johnzon.apache.org/
> [2] https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html
>
>
> Andy LoPresto
> [hidden email]
> *[hidden email] <[hidden email]>*
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Team
>
> Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to
> 1.1.0.  Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work
> to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had.  The most notable
> impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new
> nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default
> build.  It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but
> we won't distribute binaries that have it.
>
> I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items.
>
> I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone
> have any outstanding items?
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Ryan
>
> Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and
> start a vote in the next week or two at most.
>
> I'm going through the tickets again now.  There is also a new issue of
> the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and
> becoming Category-X.  Am looking into that now.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1?
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Team,
>
> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0
> release.  There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are
> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is
> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with
> what makes it in and keep working it down.  So let's please shoot for
> a couple weeks from now.  If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Team,
>
> There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0.  Let's
> avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion.
> Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be
> able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the
> list grow.
>
> Thanks
> joe
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[hidden email]>
>
> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an
>
> example.
>
> All
>
> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Edgardo,
>
> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that
> through review.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega <
>
> [hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal
>
> was
>
> try
>
> to
>
> squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the
>
> important
>
> bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the
>
> release
>
> notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is
>
> really
>
> huge.
>
> I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in
>
> the
>
> mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only
>
> trying to
>
> strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do
>
> better.
>
> I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and
>
> make
>
> it
>
> better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great
>
> this
>
> community is.
>
> Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to
>
> strengthen
>
> the
>
> nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it
>
> was
>
> reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the
>
> participation
>
> in
>
> the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't
>
> want
>
> to
>
> see that happen here.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
>
> Edgardo,
>
> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a
>
> committer I
>
> can
>
> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having
>
> already
>
> taken many of the steps you suggest.
>
> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should
>
> not be
>
> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most
>
> of us
>
> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our
>
> peers
>
> and
>
> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions.
>
> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long
>
> time
>
> and
>
> we are working to improve this pipeline.
>
> It was therefore no coincidence that I  browsed most of the PRs
>
> performing
>
> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the
>
> current
>
> code base.
>
> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of
>
> stalled
>
> and
>
> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8).
>
> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master
>
> contain a
>
> series
>
> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit
>
> from
>
> a
>
> release sooner rather than later.
>
> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is
>
> good to
>
> have you here.
>
> Andre
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>
> [hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>>
>
> wrote:
>
> Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are
>
> currently
>
> open.
>
>
> Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I
>
> believe
>
> to
>
> be
>
> extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could
>
> be
>
> a
>
> forcing
>
> function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more
>
> willing
>
> to
>
> contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able
>
> accepted
>
> and
>
> merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in
>
> progress
>
> is a
>
> great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged
>
> with
>
> the
>
> community.
>
> There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers
>
> at
>
> all.
>
> I
>
> found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't
>
> think I
>
> would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get
>
> that
>
> sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule
>
> about
>
> closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over
>
> by a
>
> core
>
> contributor if they think it worthwhile.
>
> I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was
>
> quick
>
> to
>
> review, provided great comments, testing, and even some
>
> additional
>
> code.
>
> It
>
> was a great PR experience.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall <
>
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>.
>
> invalid> wrote:
>
> Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull
>
> Requests
>
> that
>
> are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0
>
> version.
>
>
> I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR
>
> count)
>
> should
>
> be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing
>
> takes a
>
> significant amount of time from both the reviewer and
>
> contributor.
>
> In
>
> order
>
> to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a
>
> couple
>
> days.
>
>
> Also there has already been a lot of great new features and
>
> bug
>
> fixes
>
> contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth
>
> holding up
>
> a
>
> 1.1.0
>
> release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an
>
> added
>
> bonus
>
> though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs
>
> already
>
> open
>
> so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count.
>
>
> Joe
>
> - - - - - -
> Joseph Percivall
> linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> e: [hidden email] <javascript:;>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <
>
> [hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> There are less than 30 right now.  Many of the roughly 90+
>
> JIRAs
>
> opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed
>
> or
>
> just
>
> had fix versions removed.
>
> We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to
>
> deal
>
> with
>
> reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega <
>
> [hidden email] <javascript:;>>
>
> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over
>
> the
>
> next
>
> bunch
>
> of
>
> days to get them closed and then cut the release after that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt <
>
> [hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Team,
>
> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features.  I
>
> would
>
> like
>
> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much
>
> based
>
> on
>
> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new
>
> Apache
>
> NiFi
>
> 1.2.0 version.  We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8
>
> week
>
> release
>
> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi
>
> 1.2.0
>
> this
>
> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on
>
> this. In
>
> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be
>
> seeing a
>
> lot
>
> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc <
>
> [hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>>
>
> wrote:
>
> Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing
>
> for
>
> it.
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]
>
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
>
> Team,
>
> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the
>
> master
>
> line
>
> now
>
> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a
>
> release.
>
> There
>
> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which
>
> are
>
> open.
>
> I'm
>
> going to go through them and remove fix versions where
>
> appropriate.
>
>
> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if
>
> someone
>
> else
>
> would like to take that on please advise.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Edgardo
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
>
>
>
123