Excellent, Zac - that's great to hear! On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Zac Blanco <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've been working on the admin page on and off over the last month. If > we're aiming for read-only then I think I should have something up in a > week or so. (If I'm only working with the current feature set of the admin > API). > > Definitely doable for 0.10.0. > > On Aug 9, 2016 1:40 PM, "Sumit Gupta" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 9/23 is a good goal for 0.10.0. +1. > > > On 8/9/16, 4:16 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Yes, 1.5 months gets a +1 from me. > >Should we call it 9/23rd? > > > >Metrics and a read-only admin page for that timeframe sound great. > > > >Personally, I would like to see an admin page and some uptake of LDAP > >improvements before we stamp a 1.0.0. > >I could be convinced to go before anyone wants to try. :) > > > >On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:10 PM, Sumit Gupta <[email protected]> > >wrote: > > > >> Hey Larry, > >> > >> Thanks for reviving the thread. > >> > >> LDAP improvements seems like a decent theme and there is definitely a > >> bunch of work to be done there. > >> > >> A couple of other things that would be good to have before we go for a > >>1.0 > >> are (so we could consider including it in 0.10.0): > >> > >> 1. Adding metrics capabiltiies (so that we can get to metering and > >> throttling) : KNOX-643 > >> 2. A basic admin UI : KNOX-727? (we likely need another JIRA) > >> > >> Also to close the loop on the 0.10.0 vs 1.0.0 question. I think we are > >> saying that 0.10.0 is not a 1.0.0 release. And if so, I +1 that > >>decision. > >> > >> The last thing to call out, is the dev time we are aiming at for the > >>next > >> release. I think I saw 1.5 months mentioned on another thread. I am > >> certainly good with that and will always support the idea of more > >>frequent > >> releases. So +1 from my side to a 1.5 month duration for the next > >>release. > >> > >> > >> Sumit > >> > >> > >> On 8/7/16, 12:11 PM, "larry mccay" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >All - > >> > > >> >Now that we have released 0.9.1 we should resurrect this thread and > >>plan > >> >the theme for 0.10.0 release. > >> > > >> >The filter [1] shows the JIRAs currently set for Fix Version 0.10.0, > >>just > >> >as my previous proposal on this thread, it seems that LDAP related > >> >improvements are the dominate theme. > >> > > >> >With recent JIRA filings and patches provided, we have identified a few > >> >pain points related to LDAP search/lookup. > >> >A couple different approaches to optimize the group lookup may be > >> >competing, separate options or complementary - we need to rationalize > >> >exactly what optimizations are needed as part of this release. > >> > > >> >I will create a wiki page for Knox Improvement Proposal for the LDAP > >> >improvements where we can capture the direction and implementation > >>details > >> >for this as the central theme for 0.10.0. > >> > > >> >Thoughts on the theme and KIP page for capturing a coherent proposal? > >> > > >> >thanks, > >> > > >> >--larry > >> > > >> >[1] - > >> >https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KNOX-461?jql= > >> project%20%3D%20KNOX%20 > >> >AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20AND%20resolution%20%3D% > >> 20Unresolved%20AND%20fi > >> >xVersion%20%3D%200.10.0%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C% > >> 20priority%20DESC%2C%2 > >> >0created%20ASC > >> > > >> >On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:11 AM, larry mccay <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Sumit - > >> >> > >> >> I'm sorry that I missed this email! > >> >> > >> >> I am +1 on you as the release manager. > >> >> > >> >> I think that we should probably identify the driving features for > >>0.10.0 > >> >> first and then follow up that discussion with whether or not we can > >>make > >> >> this a 1.0.0 but I believe that we would need to ensure two things: > >> >> > >> >> 1. package name clean up > >> >> 2. API, programming model definition - once we go 1.0.0 we have > >> >>different > >> >> requirements for backward compatibility > >> >> > >> >> Are we happy with the ClientDSL model, with various base classes for > >> >> providers, etc? > >> >> > >> >> In terms of features for 0.10.0 - I have a couple in mind: > >> >> > >> >> 1. Centralized LDAP configuration that can be used across multiple > >> >> topologies > >> >> 2. Integration of the hadoop group lookup pluging as an identity > >> >>assertion > >> >> extension (LDAP, unix, etc) > >> >> 3. Group lookup API for KnoxSSO extension > >> >> 4. Logout API for KnoxSSO > >> >> 5. Service description pages - perhaps test pages > >> >> > >> >> Thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> --larry > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, sumit gupta <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> In light of the recent 0.9.1 planning discuss thread, I thought I > >> >>> would take the opportunity to kick off a discussion about the next > >> >>> release for Knox. > >> >>> > >> >>> The main discussion points I have so far for this release are: > >> >>> > >> >>> 1. Should this release be the 1.0.0 release for Knox? > >> >>> 2. What are the main features that we would like to target for this > >> >>> release? > >> >>> > >> >>> Once we decide on the scope of the release we can collectively come > >>up > >> >>> with a target release date. I would also be happy to volunteer as > >>the > >> >>> release manager for this release, if there is no objection. > >> >>> > >> >>> In relation to point number 1, I would be interested in seeking > >> >>> opinion on what we would like to do in terms of package names or any > >> >>> other changes to the structure of the source or build. I'm not sure > >>if > >> >>> there is a set of conventions or guidelines for an Apache project to > >> >>> follow when releasing a 1.0.0, so any insight or advice there would > >> >>> also be greatly appreciated. > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks, > >> >>> Sumit. > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
