[DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

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

Re: [DISCUSS] NiFi 1.1.0 release

Andre
Joe,

May I ask what was the decision?

Kind regards

On 24 Nov 2016 01:13, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Some good news - we can put our twitter processor back in the game.
>
> Legal VP at Apache just sent out the decision.
>
> Will immediately restore that to action and put in the follow-on
> ticket to ensure the twitter4j library moves away from the old Json
> lib (there is a PR to replace it).  We can only keep it this way until
> April so unless twitter4j resolves their source dependency we'll be
> back in this position.
>
> thanks
> joe
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Awesome.  Your prompt and detailed feedback is very much appreciated!
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> mike - also to clarify based on what you brought up I updated the JIRA
> >> description as follows
> >>
> >> The following also would be true:
> >> 1) Apache NiFi 1.0.0 repositories should work just fine when applied
> >> to an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 installation.
> >>
> >> 2) Repositories made/updated in Apache NiFi 1.1.0 onward would not
> >> work in older Apache NiFi releases (such as 1.0.0)
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > Mike - yeah good catch and good question.  It does support the old
> >> > format.  We've always been pretty good about being diligent to allow
> >> > folks to upgrade and it honor existing state and in many cases
> >> > configurations and it would automatically port them over.  What has
> >> > always been far more problematic is 'rollback' where people ran on
> >> > newer configurations but could not then go back to old framework code.
> >> > That is what NIFI-2854 tackles at least as far as the
> >> > content/prov/flowfile repositories go.  Now, the code and
> >> > serialization is done in such a way that older version can simply
> >> > ignore what never versions encoded if they don't understand it but
> >> > they should be able to continue on.
> >> >
> >> > I just tried out a 1.0.0 flow with data queued up.  Upgraded to a
> >> > latest NiFi 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT.  Moved the repos over.  And it came up
> >> > perfectly with all the queue data ready to roll.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Joe
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> After seeing "Repositories now support rollback" in the release notes
> >> and
> >> >> reading NIFI-2854 [1], I have a question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are repositories created using NiFi 1.0.0 compatible with NiFi 1.1.0
> >> >> software?  This is the goal that the ticket seems to indicate with
> 1.1.0
> >> >> onward, but it's not clear whether 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 is included.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> -- Mike
> >> >>
> >> >> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2854
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Going through the tickets, it seems like quite a release.  A few
> more
> >> >>> things for your list:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> GenerateFlowFile updated to support literal/expression content and
> >> >>> attributes
> >> >>>
> >> >>> AWS-related:
> >> >>> * New processors PutCloudWatchMetric, PutKinesisStream
> >> >>> * Updated processors PutS3Object (content type, signer options),
> ListS3
> >> >>> (performance, versions)
> >> >>> * Added support for AWS assume role credentials with proxy
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> James
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > matt
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > i'll add a wiki page or set of instructions linked from the
> release
> >> >>> notes.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > all,
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > walked through the 250 or so JIRAs in the 1.1.0 release and pulled
> >> out
> >> >>> > highlights.  The items noted are as follows.  Will likely reduce
> this
> >> >>> > down further for the release notes but wanted to put this out in
> case
> >> >>> > folks have things they think are really important to highlight.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > - Core Improvements:
> >> >>> >    - Performance: Session Migration
> >> >>> >    - Stability: Cluster Management
> >> >>> >    - Developer: Framework supports easy user driven classloader
> >> extension
> >> >>> >    - Expression Language: Now supports base64 and hex encoded
> values
> >> >>> > and Math functions
> >> >>> >    - Repositories now support rollback
> >> >>> >    - Faster startup due to more efficient state restoration
> algorithm
> >> >>> > - UX Improvements:
> >> >>> >    - Visual Backpressure Indicator
> >> >>> >    - Introduced more colors to better highlight actions and
> >> components
> >> >>> >    - Performance: Validate non-running components
> >> >>> >    - Provenance graph image can be exported
> >> >>> >    - Cron Scheduling for Primary node tasks now supported
> >> >>> > - Updated versions
> >> >>> >    - Azure Event Hub 0.9.0
> >> >>> >    - Spark 2.0.1
> >> >>> >    - Hadoop 2.7.x
> >> >>> > - New/Improved Processors
> >> >>> >    - new Fetch/Put Elastic Search 5.0
> >> >>> >    - new ParseCEF to parse CEF formatted logs
> >> >>> >    - improve ExtractEmail now supports TNEF files
> >> >>> >    - new Validate CSV
> >> >>> >    - improved Solr processors now support SSL and Kerberos
> >> >>> >    - new Websocket client and server processors
> >> >>> > - New Utility
> >> >>> >    - Zookeeper Migrator (move from one zookeeper to another)
> >> >>> > - Security
> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
> >> >>> >    - Site-to-site now supports port forwarding
> >> >>> >    - Improved Policy Management UX
> >> >>> > - Migration Notes:
> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
> >> >>> >    - Twitter Processor Removed
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Matt Burgess <
> [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> > > Is there a good spot for us to put instructions on how to build
> the
> >> >>> > > Twitter processor and/or the Social Media NAR in the meantime?
> >> Maybe a
> >> >>> > > Wiki page or something simple to say "go to this directory, run
> >> this
> >> >>> > > Maven command, drop the NAR into your deployment..." ?
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> > >> Team,
> >> >>> > >>
> >> >>> > >> We appear to be very close.  Andy is working NIFI-3024 but
> >> otherwise
> >> >>> > >> it is focus on testing.
> >> >>> > >>
> >> >>> > >> I'm going to prep the RC and release notes now.  Unfortunately
> the
> >> >>> > >> twitter changes for json.org will need to remain.  Consensus
> >> forming
> >> >>> > >> on the legal-discuss thread regarding a grace period has been
> >> elusive
> >> >>> > >> and we're already prepared to make the right steps so we'll
> just
> >> need
> >> >>> > >> to take that on by being empathetic to the user base.
> >> >>> > >>
> >> >>> > >> Thanks
> >> >>> > >> Joe
> >> >>> > >>
> >> >>> > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> > >>> Andy,
> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >>> > >>> Great to see NIFI-3050 implemented and certainly good news
> that
> >> NiFi
> >> >>> > 1.1.0
> >> >>> > >>> is set to include a number of security related improvements.
> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Andy LoPresto <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >>> > >>>> Just updating this thread that NIFI-3050 [1] and NIFI-3051
> [2]
> >> have
> >> >>> > been
> >> >>> > >>>> added to my plate for this release. Coordinated with Joe Witt
> >> and
> >> >>> they
> >> >>> > >>>> should both be included.
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3050
> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3051
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> Andy LoPresto
> >> >>> > >>>> [hidden email]
> >> >>> > >>>> *[hidden email] <[hidden email]>*
> >> >>> > >>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B
> 2F7D
> >> EF69
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> Team
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> There is a thread on apache legal-discuss that might allow
> for a
> >> >>> > >>>> graceperiod of continued usage of the json library.  Am
> going to
> >> >>> keep
> >> >>> > >>>> a close eye on this and if VP Legal approves we'll be able to
> >> keep
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> > >>>> twitter processors in which is definitely a good thing.  Will
> >> advise
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks
> >> >>> > >>>> Joe
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bryan Bende <
> [hidden email]
> >> >
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> I've noticed an issue with the per-instance class loading
> >> capability
> >> >>> > >>>> introduced in NIFI-2909 where the additional classpath
> >> resources can
> >> >>> > get
> >> >>> > >>>> incorrectly removed from the class loader.
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> I was able to reproduced this with a unit test and have a fix
> >> >>> ready. I
> >> >>> > >>>> believe this is important and needs to go in for the 1.1
> >> release,
> >> >>> > going to
> >> >>> > >>>> re-open NIFI-2909 and submit a PR shortly.
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> -Bryan
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Matt Gilman <
> >> >>> [hidden email]
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >>>> wrote:
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> I have two items that I would like to wrap up prior to
> creating
> >> an
> >> >>> RC
> >> >>> > for
> >> >>> > >>>> 1.1.0. NIFI-2949 addresses some UX issues around Remote
> Process
> >> >>> Group
> >> >>> > port
> >> >>> > >>>> configuration. The work is already completed and I will be
> >> reviewing
> >> >>> > it
> >> >>> > >>>> this today. Additionally, following recent interest on the
> >> mailing
> >> >>> > list,
> >> >>> > >>>> I'd like to knock out NIFI-3020. This will allow an admin to
> >> >>> > configure a
> >> >>> > >>>> strategy for user identity when logging in via LDAP.
> >> Specifically,
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> > will
> >> >>> > >>>> support usage of the DN (the default and current
> >> implementation) as
> >> >>> > well as
> >> >>> > >>>> the username the user logged in as. I should be able to have
> a
> >> PR up
> >> >>> > for
> >> >>> > >>>> this work later today.
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks!
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> Matt
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2949
> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3020
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> 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 cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63
> >> c15269eea8).
> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >>> > >>>> 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
it was approved for continued pre-existing usage until April 2017.
Sent a note on this earlier which you've probably just run into by
now.  We're good to go.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> May I ask what was the decision?
>
> Kind regards
>
> On 24 Nov 2016 01:13, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Some good news - we can put our twitter processor back in the game.
>>
>> Legal VP at Apache just sent out the decision.
>>
>> Will immediately restore that to action and put in the follow-on
>> ticket to ensure the twitter4j library moves away from the old Json
>> lib (there is a PR to replace it).  We can only keep it this way until
>> April so unless twitter4j resolves their source dependency we'll be
>> back in this position.
>>
>> thanks
>> joe
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Awesome.  Your prompt and detailed feedback is very much appreciated!
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> mike - also to clarify based on what you brought up I updated the JIRA
>> >> description as follows
>> >>
>> >> The following also would be true:
>> >> 1) Apache NiFi 1.0.0 repositories should work just fine when applied
>> >> to an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 installation.
>> >>
>> >> 2) Repositories made/updated in Apache NiFi 1.1.0 onward would not
>> >> work in older Apache NiFi releases (such as 1.0.0)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > Mike - yeah good catch and good question.  It does support the old
>> >> > format.  We've always been pretty good about being diligent to allow
>> >> > folks to upgrade and it honor existing state and in many cases
>> >> > configurations and it would automatically port them over.  What has
>> >> > always been far more problematic is 'rollback' where people ran on
>> >> > newer configurations but could not then go back to old framework code.
>> >> > That is what NIFI-2854 tackles at least as far as the
>> >> > content/prov/flowfile repositories go.  Now, the code and
>> >> > serialization is done in such a way that older version can simply
>> >> > ignore what never versions encoded if they don't understand it but
>> >> > they should be able to continue on.
>> >> >
>> >> > I just tried out a 1.0.0 flow with data queued up.  Upgraded to a
>> >> > latest NiFi 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT.  Moved the repos over.  And it came up
>> >> > perfectly with all the queue data ready to roll.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > Joe
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> After seeing "Repositories now support rollback" in the release notes
>> >> and
>> >> >> reading NIFI-2854 [1], I have a question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Are repositories created using NiFi 1.0.0 compatible with NiFi 1.1.0
>> >> >> software?  This is the goal that the ticket seems to indicate with
>> 1.1.0
>> >> >> onward, but it's not clear whether 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 is included.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> -- Mike
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2854
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Going through the tickets, it seems like quite a release.  A few
>> more
>> >> >>> things for your list:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> GenerateFlowFile updated to support literal/expression content and
>> >> >>> attributes
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> AWS-related:
>> >> >>> * New processors PutCloudWatchMetric, PutKinesisStream
>> >> >>> * Updated processors PutS3Object (content type, signer options),
>> ListS3
>> >> >>> (performance, versions)
>> >> >>> * Added support for AWS assume role credentials with proxy
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> James
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > matt
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > i'll add a wiki page or set of instructions linked from the
>> release
>> >> >>> notes.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > all,
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > walked through the 250 or so JIRAs in the 1.1.0 release and pulled
>> >> out
>> >> >>> > highlights.  The items noted are as follows.  Will likely reduce
>> this
>> >> >>> > down further for the release notes but wanted to put this out in
>> case
>> >> >>> > folks have things they think are really important to highlight.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > - Core Improvements:
>> >> >>> >    - Performance: Session Migration
>> >> >>> >    - Stability: Cluster Management
>> >> >>> >    - Developer: Framework supports easy user driven classloader
>> >> extension
>> >> >>> >    - Expression Language: Now supports base64 and hex encoded
>> values
>> >> >>> > and Math functions
>> >> >>> >    - Repositories now support rollback
>> >> >>> >    - Faster startup due to more efficient state restoration
>> algorithm
>> >> >>> > - UX Improvements:
>> >> >>> >    - Visual Backpressure Indicator
>> >> >>> >    - Introduced more colors to better highlight actions and
>> >> components
>> >> >>> >    - Performance: Validate non-running components
>> >> >>> >    - Provenance graph image can be exported
>> >> >>> >    - Cron Scheduling for Primary node tasks now supported
>> >> >>> > - Updated versions
>> >> >>> >    - Azure Event Hub 0.9.0
>> >> >>> >    - Spark 2.0.1
>> >> >>> >    - Hadoop 2.7.x
>> >> >>> > - New/Improved Processors
>> >> >>> >    - new Fetch/Put Elastic Search 5.0
>> >> >>> >    - new ParseCEF to parse CEF formatted logs
>> >> >>> >    - improve ExtractEmail now supports TNEF files
>> >> >>> >    - new Validate CSV
>> >> >>> >    - improved Solr processors now support SSL and Kerberos
>> >> >>> >    - new Websocket client and server processors
>> >> >>> > - New Utility
>> >> >>> >    - Zookeeper Migrator (move from one zookeeper to another)
>> >> >>> > - Security
>> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
>> >> >>> >    - Site-to-site now supports port forwarding
>> >> >>> >    - Improved Policy Management UX
>> >> >>> > - Migration Notes:
>> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
>> >> >>> >    - Twitter Processor Removed
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Matt Burgess <
>> [hidden email]
>> >> >
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> > > Is there a good spot for us to put instructions on how to build
>> the
>> >> >>> > > Twitter processor and/or the Social Media NAR in the meantime?
>> >> Maybe a
>> >> >>> > > Wiki page or something simple to say "go to this directory, run
>> >> this
>> >> >>> > > Maven command, drop the NAR into your deployment..." ?
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >> Team,
>> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >>> > >> We appear to be very close.  Andy is working NIFI-3024 but
>> >> otherwise
>> >> >>> > >> it is focus on testing.
>> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >>> > >> I'm going to prep the RC and release notes now.  Unfortunately
>> the
>> >> >>> > >> twitter changes for json.org will need to remain.  Consensus
>> >> forming
>> >> >>> > >> on the legal-discuss thread regarding a grace period has been
>> >> elusive
>> >> >>> > >> and we're already prepared to make the right steps so we'll
>> just
>> >> need
>> >> >>> > >> to take that on by being empathetic to the user base.
>> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >>> > >> Thanks
>> >> >>> > >> Joe
>> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >>> > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andre <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >>> Andy,
>> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >>> > >>> Great to see NIFI-3050 implemented and certainly good news
>> that
>> >> NiFi
>> >> >>> > 1.1.0
>> >> >>> > >>> is set to include a number of security related improvements.
>> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Andy LoPresto <
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> Just updating this thread that NIFI-3050 [1] and NIFI-3051
>> [2]
>> >> have
>> >> >>> > been
>> >> >>> > >>>> added to my plate for this release. Coordinated with Joe Witt
>> >> and
>> >> >>> they
>> >> >>> > >>>> should both be included.
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3050
>> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3051
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> Andy LoPresto
>> >> >>> > >>>> [hidden email]
>> >> >>> > >>>> *[hidden email] <[hidden email]>*
>> >> >>> > >>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B
>> 2F7D
>> >> EF69
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> Team
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> There is a thread on apache legal-discuss that might allow
>> for a
>> >> >>> > >>>> graceperiod of continued usage of the json library.  Am
>> going to
>> >> >>> keep
>> >> >>> > >>>> a close eye on this and if VP Legal approves we'll be able to
>> >> keep
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> > >>>> twitter processors in which is definitely a good thing.  Will
>> >> advise
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks
>> >> >>> > >>>> Joe
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bryan Bende <
>> [hidden email]
>> >> >
>> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> I've noticed an issue with the per-instance class loading
>> >> capability
>> >> >>> > >>>> introduced in NIFI-2909 where the additional classpath
>> >> resources can
>> >> >>> > get
>> >> >>> > >>>> incorrectly removed from the class loader.
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> I was able to reproduced this with a unit test and have a fix
>> >> >>> ready. I
>> >> >>> > >>>> believe this is important and needs to go in for the 1.1
>> >> release,
>> >> >>> > going to
>> >> >>> > >>>> re-open NIFI-2909 and submit a PR shortly.
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> -Bryan
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Matt Gilman <
>> >> >>> [hidden email]
>> >> >>> > >
>> >> >>> > >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> I have two items that I would like to wrap up prior to
>> creating
>> >> an
>> >> >>> RC
>> >> >>> > for
>> >> >>> > >>>> 1.1.0. NIFI-2949 addresses some UX issues around Remote
>> Process
>> >> >>> Group
>> >> >>> > port
>> >> >>> > >>>> configuration. The work is already completed and I will be
>> >> reviewing
>> >> >>> > it
>> >> >>> > >>>> this today. Additionally, following recent interest on the
>> >> mailing
>> >> >>> > list,
>> >> >>> > >>>> I'd like to knock out NIFI-3020. This will allow an admin to
>> >> >>> > configure a
>> >> >>> > >>>> strategy for user identity when logging in via LDAP.
>> >> Specifically,
>> >> >>> it
>> >> >>> > will
>> >> >>> > >>>> support usage of the DN (the default and current
>> >> implementation) as
>> >> >>> > well as
>> >> >>> > >>>> the username the user logged in as. I should be able to have
>> a
>> >> PR up
>> >> >>> > for
>> >> >>> > >>>> this work later today.
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks!
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> Matt
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2949
>> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3020
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> 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 cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63
>> >> c15269eea8).
>> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >>> > >>>> 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

trkurc
Administrator
awesome news!

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> it was approved for continued pre-existing usage until April 2017.
> Sent a note on this earlier which you've probably just run into by
> now.  We're good to go.
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Joe,
> >
> > May I ask what was the decision?
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > On 24 Nov 2016 01:13, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Some good news - we can put our twitter processor back in the game.
> >>
> >> Legal VP at Apache just sent out the decision.
> >>
> >> Will immediately restore that to action and put in the follow-on
> >> ticket to ensure the twitter4j library moves away from the old Json
> >> lib (there is a PR to replace it).  We can only keep it this way until
> >> April so unless twitter4j resolves their source dependency we'll be
> >> back in this position.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> joe
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > Awesome.  Your prompt and detailed feedback is very much appreciated!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> mike - also to clarify based on what you brought up I updated the
> JIRA
> >> >> description as follows
> >> >>
> >> >> The following also would be true:
> >> >> 1) Apache NiFi 1.0.0 repositories should work just fine when applied
> >> >> to an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 installation.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) Repositories made/updated in Apache NiFi 1.1.0 onward would not
> >> >> work in older Apache NiFi releases (such as 1.0.0)
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> >> > Mike - yeah good catch and good question.  It does support the old
> >> >> > format.  We've always been pretty good about being diligent to
> allow
> >> >> > folks to upgrade and it honor existing state and in many cases
> >> >> > configurations and it would automatically port them over.  What has
> >> >> > always been far more problematic is 'rollback' where people ran on
> >> >> > newer configurations but could not then go back to old framework
> code.
> >> >> > That is what NIFI-2854 tackles at least as far as the
> >> >> > content/prov/flowfile repositories go.  Now, the code and
> >> >> > serialization is done in such a way that older version can simply
> >> >> > ignore what never versions encoded if they don't understand it but
> >> >> > they should be able to continue on.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I just tried out a 1.0.0 flow with data queued up.  Upgraded to a
> >> >> > latest NiFi 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT.  Moved the repos over.  And it came up
> >> >> > perfectly with all the queue data ready to roll.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > Joe
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Moser <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> After seeing "Repositories now support rollback" in the release
> notes
> >> >> and
> >> >> >> reading NIFI-2854 [1], I have a question.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are repositories created using NiFi 1.0.0 compatible with NiFi
> 1.1.0
> >> >> >> software?  This is the goal that the ticket seems to indicate with
> >> 1.1.0
> >> >> >> onward, but it's not clear whether 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 is included.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> >> -- Mike
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2854
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Going through the tickets, it seems like quite a release.  A few
> >> more
> >> >> >>> things for your list:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> GenerateFlowFile updated to support literal/expression content
> and
> >> >> >>> attributes
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> AWS-related:
> >> >> >>> * New processors PutCloudWatchMetric, PutKinesisStream
> >> >> >>> * Updated processors PutS3Object (content type, signer options),
> >> ListS3
> >> >> >>> (performance, versions)
> >> >> >>> * Added support for AWS assume role credentials with proxy
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> James
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> > matt
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > i'll add a wiki page or set of instructions linked from the
> >> release
> >> >> >>> notes.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > all,
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > walked through the 250 or so JIRAs in the 1.1.0 release and
> pulled
> >> >> out
> >> >> >>> > highlights.  The items noted are as follows.  Will likely
> reduce
> >> this
> >> >> >>> > down further for the release notes but wanted to put this out
> in
> >> case
> >> >> >>> > folks have things they think are really important to highlight.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > - Core Improvements:
> >> >> >>> >    - Performance: Session Migration
> >> >> >>> >    - Stability: Cluster Management
> >> >> >>> >    - Developer: Framework supports easy user driven classloader
> >> >> extension
> >> >> >>> >    - Expression Language: Now supports base64 and hex encoded
> >> values
> >> >> >>> > and Math functions
> >> >> >>> >    - Repositories now support rollback
> >> >> >>> >    - Faster startup due to more efficient state restoration
> >> algorithm
> >> >> >>> > - UX Improvements:
> >> >> >>> >    - Visual Backpressure Indicator
> >> >> >>> >    - Introduced more colors to better highlight actions and
> >> >> components
> >> >> >>> >    - Performance: Validate non-running components
> >> >> >>> >    - Provenance graph image can be exported
> >> >> >>> >    - Cron Scheduling for Primary node tasks now supported
> >> >> >>> > - Updated versions
> >> >> >>> >    - Azure Event Hub 0.9.0
> >> >> >>> >    - Spark 2.0.1
> >> >> >>> >    - Hadoop 2.7.x
> >> >> >>> > - New/Improved Processors
> >> >> >>> >    - new Fetch/Put Elastic Search 5.0
> >> >> >>> >    - new ParseCEF to parse CEF formatted logs
> >> >> >>> >    - improve ExtractEmail now supports TNEF files
> >> >> >>> >    - new Validate CSV
> >> >> >>> >    - improved Solr processors now support SSL and Kerberos
> >> >> >>> >    - new Websocket client and server processors
> >> >> >>> > - New Utility
> >> >> >>> >    - Zookeeper Migrator (move from one zookeeper to another)
> >> >> >>> > - Security
> >> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
> >> >> >>> >    - Site-to-site now supports port forwarding
> >> >> >>> >    - Improved Policy Management UX
> >> >> >>> > - Migration Notes:
> >> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
> >> >> >>> >    - Twitter Processor Removed
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Matt Burgess <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> > > Is there a good spot for us to put instructions on how to
> build
> >> the
> >> >> >>> > > Twitter processor and/or the Social Media NAR in the
> meantime?
> >> >> Maybe a
> >> >> >>> > > Wiki page or something simple to say "go to this directory,
> run
> >> >> this
> >> >> >>> > > Maven command, drop the NAR into your deployment..." ?
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >> Team,
> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >>> > >> We appear to be very close.  Andy is working NIFI-3024 but
> >> >> otherwise
> >> >> >>> > >> it is focus on testing.
> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >>> > >> I'm going to prep the RC and release notes now.
> Unfortunately
> >> the
> >> >> >>> > >> twitter changes for json.org will need to remain.
> Consensus
> >> >> forming
> >> >> >>> > >> on the legal-discuss thread regarding a grace period has
> been
> >> >> elusive
> >> >> >>> > >> and we're already prepared to make the right steps so we'll
> >> just
> >> >> need
> >> >> >>> > >> to take that on by being empathetic to the user base.
> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >>> > >> Thanks
> >> >> >>> > >> Joe
> >> >> >>> > >>
> >> >> >>> > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andre <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >>> Andy,
> >> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >> >>> > >>> Great to see NIFI-3050 implemented and certainly good news
> >> that
> >> >> NiFi
> >> >> >>> > 1.1.0
> >> >> >>> > >>> is set to include a number of security related
> improvements.
> >> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >> >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Andy LoPresto <
> >> >> [hidden email]
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Just updating this thread that NIFI-3050 [1] and NIFI-3051
> >> [2]
> >> >> have
> >> >> >>> > been
> >> >> >>> > >>>> added to my plate for this release. Coordinated with Joe
> Witt
> >> >> and
> >> >> >>> they
> >> >> >>> > >>>> should both be included.
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3050
> >> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3051
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Andy LoPresto
> >> >> >>> > >>>> [hidden email]
> >> >> >>> > >>>> *[hidden email] <[hidden email]>*
> >> >> >>> > >>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B
> >> 2F7D
> >> >> EF69
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Team
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> There is a thread on apache legal-discuss that might allow
> >> for a
> >> >> >>> > >>>> graceperiod of continued usage of the json library.  Am
> >> going to
> >> >> >>> keep
> >> >> >>> > >>>> a close eye on this and if VP Legal approves we'll be
> able to
> >> >> keep
> >> >> >>> the
> >> >> >>> > >>>> twitter processors in which is definitely a good thing.
> Will
> >> >> advise
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Joe
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bryan Bende <
> >> [hidden email]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> I've noticed an issue with the per-instance class loading
> >> >> capability
> >> >> >>> > >>>> introduced in NIFI-2909 where the additional classpath
> >> >> resources can
> >> >> >>> > get
> >> >> >>> > >>>> incorrectly removed from the class loader.
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> I was able to reproduced this with a unit test and have a
> fix
> >> >> >>> ready. I
> >> >> >>> > >>>> believe this is important and needs to go in for the 1.1
> >> >> release,
> >> >> >>> > going to
> >> >> >>> > >>>> re-open NIFI-2909 and submit a PR shortly.
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> -Bryan
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Matt Gilman <
> >> >> >>> [hidden email]
> >> >> >>> > >
> >> >> >>> > >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> I have two items that I would like to wrap up prior to
> >> creating
> >> >> an
> >> >> >>> RC
> >> >> >>> > for
> >> >> >>> > >>>> 1.1.0. NIFI-2949 addresses some UX issues around Remote
> >> Process
> >> >> >>> Group
> >> >> >>> > port
> >> >> >>> > >>>> configuration. The work is already completed and I will be
> >> >> reviewing
> >> >> >>> > it
> >> >> >>> > >>>> this today. Additionally, following recent interest on the
> >> >> mailing
> >> >> >>> > list,
> >> >> >>> > >>>> I'd like to knock out NIFI-3020. This will allow an admin
> to
> >> >> >>> > configure a
> >> >> >>> > >>>> strategy for user identity when logging in via LDAP.
> >> >> Specifically,
> >> >> >>> it
> >> >> >>> > will
> >> >> >>> > >>>> support usage of the DN (the default and current
> >> >> implementation) as
> >> >> >>> > well as
> >> >> >>> > >>>> the username the user logged in as. I should be able to
> have
> >> a
> >> >> PR up
> >> >> >>> > for
> >> >> >>> > >>>> this work later today.
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks!
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> Matt
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2949
> >> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3020
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Witt <
> >> [hidden email]>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> 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 cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63
> >> >> c15269eea8).
> >> >> >>> > >>>>
> >> >> >>> > >>>> 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
Woo hoo.  We have zero items left in the 1.1.0 JIRA list and have
gotten a lot of solid input from testing thus far.

Will kick out the RC this evening.

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Tony Kurc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> awesome news!
>
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> it was approved for continued pre-existing usage until April 2017.
>> Sent a note on this earlier which you've probably just run into by
>> now.  We're good to go.
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Andre <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Joe,
>> >
>> > May I ask what was the decision?
>> >
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > On 24 Nov 2016 01:13, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Some good news - we can put our twitter processor back in the game.
>> >>
>> >> Legal VP at Apache just sent out the decision.
>> >>
>> >> Will immediately restore that to action and put in the follow-on
>> >> ticket to ensure the twitter4j library moves away from the old Json
>> >> lib (there is a PR to replace it).  We can only keep it this way until
>> >> April so unless twitter4j resolves their source dependency we'll be
>> >> back in this position.
>> >>
>> >> thanks
>> >> joe
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > Awesome.  Your prompt and detailed feedback is very much appreciated!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> mike - also to clarify based on what you brought up I updated the
>> JIRA
>> >> >> description as follows
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The following also would be true:
>> >> >> 1) Apache NiFi 1.0.0 repositories should work just fine when applied
>> >> >> to an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 installation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2) Repositories made/updated in Apache NiFi 1.1.0 onward would not
>> >> >> work in older Apache NiFi releases (such as 1.0.0)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > Mike - yeah good catch and good question.  It does support the old
>> >> >> > format.  We've always been pretty good about being diligent to
>> allow
>> >> >> > folks to upgrade and it honor existing state and in many cases
>> >> >> > configurations and it would automatically port them over.  What has
>> >> >> > always been far more problematic is 'rollback' where people ran on
>> >> >> > newer configurations but could not then go back to old framework
>> code.
>> >> >> > That is what NIFI-2854 tackles at least as far as the
>> >> >> > content/prov/flowfile repositories go.  Now, the code and
>> >> >> > serialization is done in such a way that older version can simply
>> >> >> > ignore what never versions encoded if they don't understand it but
>> >> >> > they should be able to continue on.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I just tried out a 1.0.0 flow with data queued up.  Upgraded to a
>> >> >> > latest NiFi 1.1.0-SNAPSHOT.  Moved the repos over.  And it came up
>> >> >> > perfectly with all the queue data ready to roll.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> > Joe
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Michael Moser <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> After seeing "Repositories now support rollback" in the release
>> notes
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> reading NIFI-2854 [1], I have a question.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Are repositories created using NiFi 1.0.0 compatible with NiFi
>> 1.1.0
>> >> >> >> software?  This is the goal that the ticket seems to indicate with
>> >> 1.1.0
>> >> >> >> onward, but it's not clear whether 1.0.0 -> 1.1.0 is included.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> >> -- Mike
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [1] - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2854
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Wing <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Going through the tickets, it seems like quite a release.  A few
>> >> more
>> >> >> >>> things for your list:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> GenerateFlowFile updated to support literal/expression content
>> and
>> >> >> >>> attributes
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> AWS-related:
>> >> >> >>> * New processors PutCloudWatchMetric, PutKinesisStream
>> >> >> >>> * Updated processors PutS3Object (content type, signer options),
>> >> ListS3
>> >> >> >>> (performance, versions)
>> >> >> >>> * Added support for AWS assume role credentials with proxy
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Thanks,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> James
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> > matt
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > i'll add a wiki page or set of instructions linked from the
>> >> release
>> >> >> >>> notes.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > all,
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > walked through the 250 or so JIRAs in the 1.1.0 release and
>> pulled
>> >> >> out
>> >> >> >>> > highlights.  The items noted are as follows.  Will likely
>> reduce
>> >> this
>> >> >> >>> > down further for the release notes but wanted to put this out
>> in
>> >> case
>> >> >> >>> > folks have things they think are really important to highlight.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > - Core Improvements:
>> >> >> >>> >    - Performance: Session Migration
>> >> >> >>> >    - Stability: Cluster Management
>> >> >> >>> >    - Developer: Framework supports easy user driven classloader
>> >> >> extension
>> >> >> >>> >    - Expression Language: Now supports base64 and hex encoded
>> >> values
>> >> >> >>> > and Math functions
>> >> >> >>> >    - Repositories now support rollback
>> >> >> >>> >    - Faster startup due to more efficient state restoration
>> >> algorithm
>> >> >> >>> > - UX Improvements:
>> >> >> >>> >    - Visual Backpressure Indicator
>> >> >> >>> >    - Introduced more colors to better highlight actions and
>> >> >> components
>> >> >> >>> >    - Performance: Validate non-running components
>> >> >> >>> >    - Provenance graph image can be exported
>> >> >> >>> >    - Cron Scheduling for Primary node tasks now supported
>> >> >> >>> > - Updated versions
>> >> >> >>> >    - Azure Event Hub 0.9.0
>> >> >> >>> >    - Spark 2.0.1
>> >> >> >>> >    - Hadoop 2.7.x
>> >> >> >>> > - New/Improved Processors
>> >> >> >>> >    - new Fetch/Put Elastic Search 5.0
>> >> >> >>> >    - new ParseCEF to parse CEF formatted logs
>> >> >> >>> >    - improve ExtractEmail now supports TNEF files
>> >> >> >>> >    - new Validate CSV
>> >> >> >>> >    - improved Solr processors now support SSL and Kerberos
>> >> >> >>> >    - new Websocket client and server processors
>> >> >> >>> > - New Utility
>> >> >> >>> >    - Zookeeper Migrator (move from one zookeeper to another)
>> >> >> >>> > - Security
>> >> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
>> >> >> >>> >    - Site-to-site now supports port forwarding
>> >> >> >>> >    - Improved Policy Management UX
>> >> >> >>> > - Migration Notes:
>> >> >> >>> >    - Restricted Processors
>> >> >> >>> >    - Twitter Processor Removed
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Matt Burgess <
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > > Is there a good spot for us to put instructions on how to
>> build
>> >> the
>> >> >> >>> > > Twitter processor and/or the Social Media NAR in the
>> meantime?
>> >> >> Maybe a
>> >> >> >>> > > Wiki page or something simple to say "go to this directory,
>> run
>> >> >> this
>> >> >> >>> > > Maven command, drop the NAR into your deployment..." ?
>> >> >> >>> > >
>> >> >> >>> > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >> Team,
>> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >>> > >> We appear to be very close.  Andy is working NIFI-3024 but
>> >> >> otherwise
>> >> >> >>> > >> it is focus on testing.
>> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >>> > >> I'm going to prep the RC and release notes now.
>> Unfortunately
>> >> the
>> >> >> >>> > >> twitter changes for json.org will need to remain.
>> Consensus
>> >> >> forming
>> >> >> >>> > >> on the legal-discuss thread regarding a grace period has
>> been
>> >> >> elusive
>> >> >> >>> > >> and we're already prepared to make the right steps so we'll
>> >> just
>> >> >> need
>> >> >> >>> > >> to take that on by being empathetic to the user base.
>> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >>> > >> Thanks
>> >> >> >>> > >> Joe
>> >> >> >>> > >>
>> >> >> >>> > >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andre <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >>> Andy,
>> >> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>> Great to see NIFI-3050 implemented and certainly good news
>> >> that
>> >> >> NiFi
>> >> >> >>> > 1.1.0
>> >> >> >>> > >>> is set to include a number of security related
>> improvements.
>> >> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Andy LoPresto <
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Just updating this thread that NIFI-3050 [1] and NIFI-3051
>> >> [2]
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> >>> > been
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> added to my plate for this release. Coordinated with Joe
>> Witt
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> >>> they
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> should both be included.
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3050
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3051
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Andy LoPresto
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> *[hidden email] <[hidden email]>*
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B
>> >> 2F7D
>> >> >> EF69
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Joe Witt <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Team
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> There is a thread on apache legal-discuss that might allow
>> >> for a
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> graceperiod of continued usage of the json library.  Am
>> >> going to
>> >> >> >>> keep
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> a close eye on this and if VP Legal approves we'll be
>> able to
>> >> >> keep
>> >> >> >>> the
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> twitter processors in which is definitely a good thing.
>> Will
>> >> >> advise
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Joe
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bryan Bende <
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> I've noticed an issue with the per-instance class loading
>> >> >> capability
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> introduced in NIFI-2909 where the additional classpath
>> >> >> resources can
>> >> >> >>> > get
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> incorrectly removed from the class loader.
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> I was able to reproduced this with a unit test and have a
>> fix
>> >> >> >>> ready. I
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> believe this is important and needs to go in for the 1.1
>> >> >> release,
>> >> >> >>> > going to
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> re-open NIFI-2909 and submit a PR shortly.
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> -Bryan
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Matt Gilman <
>> >> >> >>> [hidden email]
>> >> >> >>> > >
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> I have two items that I would like to wrap up prior to
>> >> creating
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> >>> RC
>> >> >> >>> > for
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> 1.1.0. NIFI-2949 addresses some UX issues around Remote
>> >> Process
>> >> >> >>> Group
>> >> >> >>> > port
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> configuration. The work is already completed and I will be
>> >> >> reviewing
>> >> >> >>> > it
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> this today. Additionally, following recent interest on the
>> >> >> mailing
>> >> >> >>> > list,
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> I'd like to knock out NIFI-3020. This will allow an admin
>> to
>> >> >> >>> > configure a
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> strategy for user identity when logging in via LDAP.
>> >> >> Specifically,
>> >> >> >>> it
>> >> >> >>> > will
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> support usage of the DN (the default and current
>> >> >> implementation) as
>> >> >> >>> > well as
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> the username the user logged in as. I should be able to
>> have
>> >> a
>> >> >> PR up
>> >> >> >>> > for
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> this work later today.
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Thanks!
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> Matt
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2949
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3020
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Witt <
>> >> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> 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 cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63
>> >> >> c15269eea8).
>> >> >> >>> > >>>>
>> >> >> >>> > >>>> 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