Next release?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
21 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Next release?

Sean Busbey
Hi Folks!

Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
starting a release candidate?

--
Sean
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Joe Witt
I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to scrub the
items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Folks!
>
> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> starting a release candidate?
>
> --
> Sean
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Michael Moser
All,

On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some thread
starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning wheel of
death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps point to the
WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some small quick-win changes
that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.  I
will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to see it
in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.

Thanks,
-- Mike


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to scrub the
> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks!
> >
> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> > starting a release candidate?
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Joe Witt
mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
I recognize why that is non-trivial.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]> wrote:

> All,
>
> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some thread
> starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning wheel of
> death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps point to the
> WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some small quick-win changes
> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.  I
> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to see it
> in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>
> Thanks,
> -- Mike
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to scrub the
>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Folks!
>> >
>> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>> > starting a release candidate?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sean
>> >
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Joe Witt
Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6
to 8 week release cycles in my view.

We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of processors
in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion there.

Thanks
Joe
On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some thread
> > starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning wheel of
> > death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps point to the
> > WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some small quick-win
> changes
> > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.
> I
> > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to see it
> > in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- Mike
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to scrub
> the
> >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Folks!
> >> >
> >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> >> > starting a release candidate?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sean
> >> >
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Next release?

Rick Braddy
Joe,

This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and production use?

Thanks
Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Next release?

Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6 to 8 week release cycles in my view.

We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion there.

Thanks
Joe
On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
> > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
> > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> > small quick-win
> changes
> > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.
> I
> > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
> > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- Mike
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> >> scrub
> the
> >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Folks!
> >> >
> >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> >> > starting a release candidate?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sean
> >> >
> >>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Next release?

Joe Witt
The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea is
that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on with
this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.  But
we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and production
> use?
>
> Thanks
> Rick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: Next release?
>
> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6
> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>
> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
> there.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> > > small quick-win
> > changes
> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.
> > I
> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -- Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> > >> scrub
> > the
> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Folks!
> > >> >
> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> > >> > starting a release candidate?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Sean
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Joe Witt
Team,

As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:

Version 0.4.0

Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
 - Added proper support for tailing log files.
 - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
based on username/password
 - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
 - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
 - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
 - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
 - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
with 1000s of objects
 - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
 - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
 - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
 - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
given component
 - Added SSL support to JMS processors

Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
of 040.

We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.

I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
understand likely target dates for completion.

Thanks
Joe

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea is
> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on with
> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.  But
> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>
> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and production
>> use?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rick
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: Next release?
>>
>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6
>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>>
>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
>> there.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
>> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
>> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > All,
>> > >
>> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
>> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
>> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>> > > small quick-win
>> > changes
>> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>> > > community.
>> > I
>> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
>> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > -- Mike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>> > >> scrub
>> > the
>> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Hi Folks!
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>> > >> > starting a release candidate?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Sean
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Ricky Saltzer
Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for adding a
Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been using
it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues, so it
might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
release on the 19th.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Team,
>
> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
>
> Version 0.4.0
>
> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
>  - Added proper support for tailing log files.
>  - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> based on username/password
>  - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
>  - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
>  - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
>  - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
>  - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> with 1000s of objects
>  - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
>  - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
>  - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
>  - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> given component
>  - Added SSL support to JMS processors
>
> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
> of 040.
>
> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
>
> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> understand likely target dates for completion.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea
> is
> > that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
> > Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
> > verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
> > do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
> with
> > this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
> But
> > we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Joe,
> >>
> >> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
> >> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
> >> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> production
> >> use?
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Rick
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: Re: Next release?
> >>
> >> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
> >> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
> for 6
> >> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> >>
> >> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> >> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
> >> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
> >> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Joe
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > All,
> >> > >
> >> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> >> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
> >> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
> >> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> >> > > small quick-win
> >> > changes
> >> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> >> > > community.
> >> > I
> >> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
> >> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > -- Mike
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> >> > >> scrub
> >> > the
> >> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> >> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Hi Folks!
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> >> > >> > starting a release candidate?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > --
> >> > >> > Sean
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> >
>



--
Ricky Saltzer
http://www.cloudera.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Joe Witt
Ricky,

Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)

Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.

Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
privileges for that already?

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for adding a
> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been using
> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues, so it
> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
> release on the 19th.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
>>
>> Version 0.4.0
>>
>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
>>  - Added proper support for tailing log files.
>>  - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
>> based on username/password
>>  - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
>>  - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
>>  - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
>>  - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
>>  - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
>> with 1000s of objects
>>  - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
>>  - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
>>  - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
>>  - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
>> given component
>>  - Added SSL support to JMS processors
>>
>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
>> of 040.
>>
>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
>>
>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
>> understand likely target dates for completion.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea
>> is
>> > that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
>> > Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
>> > verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
>> > do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
>> with
>> > this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
>> But
>> > we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>> >
>> > On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Joe,
>> >>
>> >> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
>> >> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
>> >> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
>> production
>> >> use?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Rick
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>> >> To: [hidden email]
>> >> Subject: Re: Next release?
>> >>
>> >> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
>> >> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
>> for 6
>> >> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>> >>
>> >> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>> >> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
>> >> there.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Joe
>> >> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
>> >> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
>> >> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks
>> >> > Joe
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > All,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>> >> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
>> >> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
>> >> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>> >> > > small quick-win
>> >> > changes
>> >> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>> >> > > community.
>> >> > I
>> >> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
>> >> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > > -- Mike
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>> >> > >> scrub
>> >> > the
>> >> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>> >> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > Hi Folks!
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>> >> > >> > starting a release candidate?
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > --
>> >> > >> > Sean
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ricky Saltzer
> http://www.cloudera.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Ricky Saltzer
Ah of course! I'll use this as an opportunity to validate privileges are
set up correctly. Thanks, Joe.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ricky,
>
> Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
>
> Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
>
> Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> privileges for that already?
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> adding a
> > Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been
> using
> > it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues, so
> it
> > might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
> > release on the 19th.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Team,
> >>
> >> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> >> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> >> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> >>
> >> Version 0.4.0
> >>
> >> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> >>  - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> >>  - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> >> based on username/password
> >>  - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> >>  - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> >>  - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> >>  - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> >>  - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> >> with 1000s of objects
> >>  - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> >>  - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> >>  - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> >>  - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> >> given component
> >>  - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> >>
> >> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> >> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
> >> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
> >> of 040.
> >>
> >> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> >> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
> >> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> >> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> >>
> >> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> >> understand likely target dates for completion.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> > The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main
> idea
> >> is
> >> > that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the
> RC.
> >> > Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> power to
> >> > verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> should
> >> > do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
> >> with
> >> > this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
> >> But
> >> > we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> >> >
> >> > On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Joe,
> >> >>
> >> >> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> defects
> >> >> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is
> the
> >> >> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> >> production
> >> >> use?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Rick
> >> >>
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> >> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> >> Subject: Re: Next release?
> >> >>
> >> >> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
> >> >> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
> >> for 6
> >> >> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> >> >>
> >> >> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> >> >> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> discussion
> >> >> there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks
> >> >> Joe
> >> >> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.
> If
> >> >> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
> though
> >> >> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >> > Joe
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> [hidden email]>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > > All,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> >> >> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> "spinning
> >> >> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> dumps
> >> >> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> >> >> > > small quick-win
> >> >> > changes
> >> >> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> >> >> > > community.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like
> to
> >> >> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thanks,
> >> >> > > -- Mike
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> >> >> > >> scrub
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> >> >> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> > Hi Folks!
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> >> >> > >> > starting a release candidate?
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > --
> >> >> > >> > Sean
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ricky Saltzer
> > http://www.cloudera.com
>



--
Ricky Saltzer
http://www.cloudera.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Ricky Saltzer
I was able to tag the JIRA with 0.4.0 release, but I don't currently have
permissions to perform the merge via Github. Is it preferred that I commit
the changes directly the ASF repository and then close the pull request?

Thanks!

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ah of course! I'll use this as an opportunity to validate privileges are
> set up correctly. Thanks, Joe.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Ricky,
>>
>> Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
>>
>> Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
>> licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
>> and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
>>
>> Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
>> privileges for that already?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
>> adding a
>> > Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been
>> using
>> > it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues,
>> so it
>> > might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
>> > release on the 19th.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Team,
>> >>
>> >> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
>> >> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
>> >> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
>> >>
>> >> Version 0.4.0
>> >>
>> >> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
>> >>  - Added proper support for tailing log files.
>> >>  - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
>> >> based on username/password
>> >>  - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
>> >>  - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
>> >>  - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
>> >>  - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
>> >>  - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
>> >> with 1000s of objects
>> >>  - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
>> >>  - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
>> >>  - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
>> >>  - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
>> >> given component
>> >>  - Added SSL support to JMS processors
>> >>
>> >> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
>> >> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
>> >> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
>> >> of 040.
>> >>
>> >> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
>> >> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
>> >> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
>> >> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
>> >>
>> >> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
>> >> understand likely target dates for completion.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Joe
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> > The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main
>> idea
>> >> is
>> >> > that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from
>> the RC.
>> >> > Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
>> power to
>> >> > verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
>> should
>> >> > do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so
>> on
>> >> with
>> >> > this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
>> >> But
>> >> > we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Joe,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
>> defects
>> >> >> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what
>> is the
>> >> >> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
>> >> production
>> >> >> use?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> Rick
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> >> >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>> >> >> To: [hidden email]
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Next release?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to
>> move
>> >> >> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
>> strive
>> >> for 6
>> >> >> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>> >> >> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
>> discussion
>> >> >> there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> Joe
>> >> >> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.
>> If
>> >> >> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
>> though
>> >> >> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks
>> >> >> > Joe
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
>> [hidden email]>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> > > All,
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>> >> >> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
>> "spinning
>> >> >> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
>> dumps
>> >> >> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>> >> >> > > small quick-win
>> >> >> > changes
>> >> >> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>> >> >> > > community.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like
>> to
>> >> >> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> >> > > -- Mike
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>> >> >> > >> scrub
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>> >> >> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> > Hi Folks!
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up
>> for
>> >> >> > >> > starting a release candidate?
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> > --
>> >> >> > >> > Sean
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ricky Saltzer
>> > http://www.cloudera.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ricky Saltzer
> http://www.cloudera.com
>
>


--
Ricky Saltzer
http://www.cloudera.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Oleg Zhurakousky
In reply to this post by Joe Witt
May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a consensus

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Ricky,
>
> Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
>
> Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
>
> Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> privileges for that already?
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for adding a
>> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been using
>> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues, so it
>> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
>> release on the 19th.
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
>>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
>>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
>>>
>>> Version 0.4.0
>>>
>>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
>>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
>>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
>>> based on username/password
>>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
>>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
>>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
>>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
>>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
>>> with 1000s of objects
>>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
>>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
>>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
>>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
>>> given component
>>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
>>>
>>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
>>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
>>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
>>> of 040.
>>>
>>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
>>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
>>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
>>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
>>>
>>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
>>> understand likely target dates for completion.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea
>>> is
>>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
>>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
>>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
>>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
>>> with
>>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
>>> But
>>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
>>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
>>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
>>> production
>>>>> use?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Rick
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
>>>>>
>>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
>>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
>>> for 6
>>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
>>>>> there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
>>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
>>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
>>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
>>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>>>>>>> small quick-win
>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
>>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>>>>>>>> scrub
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Sean
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ricky Saltzer
>> http://www.cloudera.com
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Alan Jackoway
I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks
good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put
their own code in without sign off.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one
> must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a consensus
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Ricky,
> >
> > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> >
> > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> >
> > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > privileges for that already?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> adding a
> >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been
> using
> >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues,
> so it
> >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
> >> release on the 19th.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Team,
> >>>
> >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> >>>
> >>> Version 0.4.0
> >>>
> >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> >>> based on username/password
> >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> >>> with 1000s of objects
> >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> >>> given component
> >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> >>>
> >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
> >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
> >>> of 040.
> >>>
> >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
> >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> >>>
> >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main
> idea
> >>> is
> >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the
> RC.
> >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> power to
> >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> should
> >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
> >>> with
> >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
> >>> But
> >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Joe,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> defects
> >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is
> the
> >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> >>> production
> >>>>> use?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> Rick
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
> >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
> >>> for 6
> >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> discussion
> >>>>> there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks
> >>>>> Joe
> >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
> >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
> though
> >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Joe
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> All,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
> >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
> >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> >>>>>>> small quick-win
> >>>>>> changes
> >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> >>>>>>> community.
> >>>>>> I
> >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
> >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> -- Mike
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> >>>>>>>> scrub
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Sean
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Ricky Saltzer
> >> http://www.cloudera.com
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Aldrin Piri
We certainly follow the RTC process with NiFi. As Joe mentioned, as long as
there is a consensus plus one, then you can push.

I will put this on my plate to scope out at some point today and get you
the review so you can give your new credentials some usage.

Thanks!

--aldrin



On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alan Jackoway <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks
> good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put
> their own code in without sign off.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one
> > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a
> consensus
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ricky,
> > >
> > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> > >
> > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> > > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> > >
> > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > > privileges for that already?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> > adding a
> > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been
> > using
> > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues,
> > so it
> > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
> > >> release on the 19th.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Team,
> > >>>
> > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > >>>
> > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > >>>
> > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> > >>> based on username/password
> > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> > >>> given component
> > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > >>>
> > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do
> a
> > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
> > >>> of 040.
> > >>>
> > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
> > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> Joe
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main
> > idea
> > >>> is
> > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from
> the
> > RC.
> > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > power to
> > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> > should
> > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so
> on
> > >>> with
> > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can
> do.
> > >>> But
> > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Joe,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> > defects
> > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what
> is
> > the
> > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> > >>> production
> > >>>>> use?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> Rick
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to
> move
> > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> strive
> > >>> for 6
> > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > discussion
> > >>>>> there.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>> Joe
> > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.
> If
> > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
> > though
> > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks
> > >>>>>> Joe
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> All,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> "spinning
> > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> dumps
> > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > >>>>>> changes
> > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> > >>>>>>> community.
> > >>>>>> I
> > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like
> to
> > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Bryan Bende
Also, to answer Ricky's question about how to merge in the pull request
once there is consensus...

There are multiple ways to do it, but I believe what a lot of PMC members
do is the following:
- Get a patch of the pull request by appending .patch to the end of the url
- git am --signoff < foo.patch
- git commit --allow-empty -m"This closes #___"
- git push

It may be as simple as clicking the merge button in github, but I haven't
tried :)


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We certainly follow the RTC process with NiFi. As Joe mentioned, as long as
> there is a consensus plus one, then you can push.
>
> I will put this on my plate to scope out at some point today and get you
> the review so you can give your new credentials some usage.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --aldrin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alan Jackoway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> > should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks
> > good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put
> > their own code in without sign off.
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects -
> one
> > > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a
> > consensus
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ricky,
> > > >
> > > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> > > >
> > > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > > > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus
> one
> > > > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> > > >
> > > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > > > privileges for that already?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> > > adding a
> > > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've
> been
> > > using
> > > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any
> issues,
> > > so it
> > > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for
> the
> > > >> release on the 19th.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Team,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> > > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> > > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> > > >>> based on username/password
> > > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> > > >>> given component
> > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please
> do
> > a
> > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved
> off
> > > >>> of 040.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> think
> > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks
> > > >>> Joe
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> main
> > > idea
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from
> > the
> > > RC.
> > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > > power to
> > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> > > should
> > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and
> so
> > on
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can
> > do.
> > > >>> But
> > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> > > defects
> > > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what
> > is
> > > the
> > > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> > > >>> production
> > > >>>>> use?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>> Rick
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > > >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to
> > move
> > > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> > strive
> > > >>> for 6
> > > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> > > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > > discussion
> > > >>>>> there.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>> Joe
> > > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.
> > If
> > > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
> > > though
> > > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>> Joe
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> All,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed
> some
> > > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> > "spinning
> > > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> > dumps
> > > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> > > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > > >>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> > > >>>>>>> community.
> > > >>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like
> > to
> > > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need
> to
> > > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up
> for
> > > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Aldrin Piri
Unfortunately, at least for the NiFi world (not sure if other Apache
projects have gotten this integration), our credentials do not map to
Github accounts.  I typically use a similar path as above or another
variant whereby I can access the PRs for the project locally.

Regardless, this calls for a comitter's guide/section in addition to what
is currently on our Wiki as it has come up on multiple occasions.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Also, to answer Ricky's question about how to merge in the pull request
> once there is consensus...
>
> There are multiple ways to do it, but I believe what a lot of PMC members
> do is the following:
> - Get a patch of the pull request by appending .patch to the end of the url
> - git am --signoff < foo.patch
> - git commit --allow-empty -m"This closes #___"
> - git push
>
> It may be as simple as clicking the merge button in github, but I haven't
> tried :)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > We certainly follow the RTC process with NiFi. As Joe mentioned, as long
> as
> > there is a consensus plus one, then you can push.
> >
> > I will put this on my plate to scope out at some point today and get you
> > the review so you can give your new credentials some usage.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --aldrin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alan Jackoway <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> > > should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says
> "looks
> > > good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should
> put
> > > their own code in without sign off.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects -
> > one
> > > > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a
> > > consensus
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ricky,
> > > > >
> > > > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > > > > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus
> > one
> > > > > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > > > > privileges for that already?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> > > > adding a
> > > > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've
> > been
> > > > using
> > > > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any
> > issues,
> > > > so it
> > > > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for
> > the
> > > > >> release on the 19th.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Team,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current
> highlights
> > > > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might
> have
> > > > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > > > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > > > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication
> mechanisms
> > > > >>> based on username/password
> > > > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions
> dealing
> > > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> > > > >>> given component
> > > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0
> which
> > > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please
> > do
> > > a
> > > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved
> > off
> > > > >>> of 040.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov
> 19th
> > > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> > think
> > > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which
> really
> > > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > >>> Joe
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> > main
> > > > idea
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so
> from
> > > the
> > > > RC.
> > > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > > > power to
> > > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing
> folks
> > > > should
> > > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and
> > so
> > > on
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we
> can
> > > do.
> > > > >>> But
> > > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> > > > defects
> > > > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words,
> what
> > > is
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> > > > >>> production
> > > > >>>>> use?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>> Rick
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > > > >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage
> to
> > > move
> > > > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> > > strive
> > > > >>> for 6
> > > > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those
> of
> > > > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > > > discussion
> > > > >>>>> there.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>> Joe
> > > > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the
> ticket.
> > > If
> > > > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be
> awesome
> > > > though
> > > > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>>> Joe
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> All,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed
> > some
> > > > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> > > "spinning
> > > > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> > > dumps
> > > > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made
> some
> > > > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> > > > >>>>>>> community.
> > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would
> like
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need
> > to
> > > > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up
> > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > > > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Joey Echeverria-2
In reply to this post by Alan Jackoway
+1. There's a huge advantage, both from a code quality and community building perspective to have Committers and Contributors be on a level playing field when it comes to requiring a review from another Committer.

-Joey

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 07:27, Alan Jackoway <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks
> good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put
> their own code in without sign off.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one
>> must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a consensus
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ricky,
>>>
>>> Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
>>>
>>> Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
>>> licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
>>> and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
>>>
>>> Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
>>> privileges for that already?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
>> adding a
>>>> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been
>> using
>>>> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues,
>> so it
>>>> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
>>>> release on the 19th.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Team,
>>>>>
>>>>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
>>>>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
>>>>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
>>>>>
>>>>> Version 0.4.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
>>>>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
>>>>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
>>>>> based on username/password
>>>>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
>>>>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
>>>>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
>>>>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
>>>>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
>>>>> with 1000s of objects
>>>>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
>>>>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
>>>>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
>>>>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
>>>>> given component
>>>>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
>>>>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
>>>>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
>>>>> of 040.
>>>>>
>>>>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
>>>>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
>>>>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
>>>>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
>>>>> understand likely target dates for completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Joe
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main
>> idea
>>>>> is
>>>>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the
>> RC.
>>>>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
>> power to
>>>>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
>> should
>>>>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
>>>>> with
>>>>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
>>>>> But
>>>>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
>> defects
>>>>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is
>> the
>>>>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
>>>>> production
>>>>>>> use?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>>>>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
>>>>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
>>>>> for 6
>>>>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>>>>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
>> discussion
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
>>>>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
>> though
>>>>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <[hidden email]
>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>>>>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
>>>>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
>>>>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>>>>>>>>> small quick-win
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
>>>>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>>>>>>>>>> scrub
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>>>>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ricky Saltzer
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

Mike Drob
In reply to this post by Aldrin Piri
Aside: Fine grained authorization control through github is coming Real
Soon Now, and AFAIK Infra will be rolling out a beta to a few projects
within the coming months. I can't find a cite for this at the moment, but
it's something they're working on.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Unfortunately, at least for the NiFi world (not sure if other Apache
> projects have gotten this integration), our credentials do not map to
> Github accounts.  I typically use a similar path as above or another
> variant whereby I can access the PRs for the project locally.
>
> Regardless, this calls for a comitter's guide/section in addition to what
> is currently on our Wiki as it has come up on multiple occasions.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Also, to answer Ricky's question about how to merge in the pull request
> > once there is consensus...
> >
> > There are multiple ways to do it, but I believe what a lot of PMC members
> > do is the following:
> > - Get a patch of the pull request by appending .patch to the end of the
> url
> > - git am --signoff < foo.patch
> > - git commit --allow-empty -m"This closes #___"
> > - git push
> >
> > It may be as simple as clicking the merge button in github, but I haven't
> > tried :)
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We certainly follow the RTC process with NiFi. As Joe mentioned, as
> long
> > as
> > > there is a consensus plus one, then you can push.
> > >
> > > I will put this on my plate to scope out at some point today and get
> you
> > > the review so you can give your new credentials some usage.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > --aldrin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alan Jackoway <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> > > > should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says
> > "looks
> > > > good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should
> > put
> > > > their own code in without sign off.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of
> projects -
> > > one
> > > > > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a
> > > > consensus
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ricky,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > > > > > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good
> plus
> > > one
> > > > > > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on
> it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > > > > > privileges for that already?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now
> for
> > > > > adding a
> > > > > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>.
> I've
> > > been
> > > > > using
> > > > > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any
> > > issues,
> > > > > so it
> > > > > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in
> for
> > > the
> > > > > >> release on the 19th.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Team,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current
> > highlights
> > > > > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might
> > have
> > > > > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > > > > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > > > > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication
> > mechanisms
> > > > > >>> based on username/password
> > > > > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > > > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > > > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions
> > dealing
> > > > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > > > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events
> of a
> > > > > >>> given component
> > > > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0
> > which
> > > > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.
> Please
> > > do
> > > > a
> > > > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be
> moved
> > > off
> > > > > >>> of 040.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov
> > 19th
> > > > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> > > think
> > > > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which
> > really
> > > > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > > >>> Joe
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> > > main
> > > > > idea
> > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > RC.
> > > > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on
> people
> > > > > power to
> > > > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing
> > folks
> > > > > should
> > > > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments
> and
> > > so
> > > > on
> > > > > >>> with
> > > > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we
> > can
> > > > do.
> > > > > >>> But
> > > > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria
> (from a
> > > > > defects
> > > > > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words,
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release
> and
> > > > > >>> production
> > > > > >>>>> use?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >>>>> Rick
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > > > > >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage
> > to
> > > > move
> > > > > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we
> should
> > > > strive
> > > > > >>> for 6
> > > > > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those
> > of
> > > > > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > >>>>> there.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >>>>> Joe
> > > > > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the
> > ticket.
> > > > If
> > > > > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be
> > awesome
> > > > > though
> > > > > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > > > >>>>>> Joe
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> All,
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed
> > > some
> > > > > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> > > > "spinning
> > > > > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and
> heap
> > > > dumps
> > > > > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made
> > some
> > > > > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from
> the
> > > > > >>>>>>> community.
> > > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would
> > like
> > > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <
> > [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We
> need
> > > to
> > > > > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one
> up
> > > for
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > > > > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next release?

trkurc
Administrator
In reply to this post by Bryan Bende
I've been using apache yetus locally to merge github prs.

test-patch.sh
--plugins="maven,asflicense,checkstyle,whitespace,findbugs,github"
--github-repo=apache/nifi 88

This pulls it from github as a patch, the autobuilds and checks style and
findbugs. Still some rough edges. I'm using a fork of yetus that does
checkstyle:check to replicate contrib-check/

Frankly, I try to get the commit message to be as helpful as possible,a
commit message that simply says "Merged from X" or "This closes #88" I find
to not be helpful. But we've had discussions on the list in the past, and
have left it to committers discretion. I tend to use git tools for
rewriting history like git rebase -i and git commit -amend on my local repo
to get the commit message(s) to look as nice as possible.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Bryan Bende <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Also, to answer Ricky's question about how to merge in the pull request
> once there is consensus...
>
> There are multiple ways to do it, but I believe what a lot of PMC members
> do is the following:
> - Get a patch of the pull request by appending .patch to the end of the url
> - git am --signoff < foo.patch
> - git commit --allow-empty -m"This closes #___"
> - git push
>
> It may be as simple as clicking the merge button in github, but I haven't
> tried :)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Aldrin Piri <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > We certainly follow the RTC process with NiFi. As Joe mentioned, as long
> as
> > there is a consensus plus one, then you can push.
> >
> > I will put this on my plate to scope out at some point today and get you
> > the review so you can give your new credentials some usage.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --aldrin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Alan Jackoway <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
> > > should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says
> "looks
> > > good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should
> put
> > > their own code in without sign off.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects -
> > one
> > > > must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a
> > > consensus
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ricky,
> > > > >
> > > > > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > > > > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus
> > one
> > > > > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > > > > privileges for that already?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> > > > adding a
> > > > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've
> > been
> > > > using
> > > > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any
> > issues,
> > > > so it
> > > > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for
> > the
> > > > >> release on the 19th.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Team,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current
> highlights
> > > > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might
> have
> > > > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > > > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > > > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication
> mechanisms
> > > > >>> based on username/password
> > > > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions
> dealing
> > > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> > > > >>> given component
> > > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0
> which
> > > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please
> > do
> > > a
> > > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved
> > off
> > > > >>> of 040.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov
> 19th
> > > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> > think
> > > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which
> really
> > > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > >>> Joe
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> > main
> > > > idea
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so
> from
> > > the
> > > > RC.
> > > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > > > power to
> > > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing
> folks
> > > > should
> > > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and
> > so
> > > on
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we
> can
> > > do.
> > > > >>> But
> > > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> > > > defects
> > > > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words,
> what
> > > is
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> > > > >>> production
> > > > >>>>> use?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>> Rick
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:[hidden email]]
> > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > > > >>>>> To: [hidden email]
> > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage
> to
> > > move
> > > > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> > > strive
> > > > >>> for 6
> > > > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those
> of
> > > > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > > > discussion
> > > > >>>>> there.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>> Joe
> > > > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the
> ticket.
> > > If
> > > > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be
> awesome
> > > > though
> > > > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>>> Joe
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> All,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed
> > some
> > > > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> > > "spinning
> > > > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> > > dumps
> > > > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made
> some
> > > > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> > > > >>>>>>> community.
> > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would
> like
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <
> [hidden email]
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need
> > to
> > > > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <[hidden email]
> >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up
> > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > > > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
12