Hi all,
Out of the 58 Jiras resolved, completely or partially, between 0.3.1 and 0.4.0, 
only one is labeled “backward-incompatible” and has text in the “Docs Text” 
field.  And it’s super minor (METRON-771).

Is this really true?  If so, great, but if not, please help people upgrade 
without glitches:  Fix these fields in your jiras, so they can be included in 
the Release Notes.
a) In the “Labels” field, add “backward-incompatible”.  (It will autocomplete 
for you.)
b) In the “Doc Text” field, say what the issue is and what a person upgrading 
should do about it, if anything.

As usual, non-response will be considered positive confirmation that no 
response is necessary :-)
Please try to address in the next day or so.

Thanks,
Your humble Release Manager


On 4/12/17, 10:59 AM, "zeo...@gmail.com" <zeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

    I agree conceptually but haven't looked at them each individually to see
    how much they impact and if a short timeline for merging is reasonable.
    METRON-821 just needs a minor change and then a final run-through before
    I'm comfortable merging it in.
    
    Jon
    
    On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:44 AM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote:
    
    > It would be nice to close out all the "Kerberos" related PRs prior to the
    > release.  Let me know if anyone thinks any of these are not feasible for
    > the release.
    >
    > To that end I went through and reviewed some of the outstanding ones below
    > to try and help move them along.  Any others willing to help would be much
    > appreciated.
    >
    > METRON-836 Use Pycapa with Kerberos
    > #524 opened 18 hours ago by nickwallen
    >
    > METRON-835 Use Profiler with Kerberos
    > #521 opened 2 days ago by nickwalle
    >
    > METRON-833: Update MaaS documentation to explain how it interacts with
    > kerberos
    > #520 opened 5 days ago by cestella
    >
    > METRON-799: The MPack should function in a kerberized cluster
    > #518 opened 5 days ago by justinlee
    >
    > METRON-821 Minor fixes in full dev kerberos setup instructions
    > #510 opened 8 days ago by JonZeolla  4 of 4
    >
    > METRON-819: Document kafka console producer parameter for sensors with
    > kerberos
    > #507 opened 9 days ago by mmiklavc  4 of 4
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Matt Foley <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
    >
    > > Hi all,
    > > Although it’s only been a few weeks since the last release was finally
    > > published, that process started in January :-)
    > > Also, the last commit in 0.3.1 was Feb 23, and there’s been a ton of
    > > really cool new stuff added since then:
    > >
    > > Biggest items:
    > > - Multiple commits for REST API (base Jira: METRON-503)
    > > - Multiple commits to work with Kerberized (secure) clusters (mult.
    > Jiras)
    > >
    > > Other major new features:
    > > - METRON-690: DSL-based sparse time window specification for Profiler
    > > - METRON-733: Remove Geo db from ParserBolt
    > > - METRON-686: Record rule set that fired during Threat Triage
    > > - METRON-743: Sort files when reading results from Pcap
    > > - METRON-701: Triage metrics produced by Profiler
    > > - METRON-744: Stellar external functions loaded from HDFS (and huge
    > > speed-up for function resolution)
    > > - METRON-694: Index errors from Topologies, and
    > > - METRON-745: Create Error dashboards
    > > - METRON-712: Separate eval from parse in Stellar
    > > - METRON-765: Add GUID to messages
    > > - METRON-793: Updated to storm-kafka-client spout
    > >
    > > We’ve also had numerous bug fixes, docs improvements, and improvements 
to
    > > deployment tools (docker, ansible, mpack, quickdev, and fulldev).
    > >
    > > I think the REST API and Kerberization, by themselves, would justify a
    > > release.  Along with the others, I’d like to propose that we make a
    > release
    > > soon.  The time frame I had in mind was at the end of this week I could
    > cut
    > > a release branch (so on-going work in master doesn’t get blocked) and
    > start
    > > the process of generating an RC.
    > >
    > > What do you-all think?
    > > Also, what additional work do you think should be included in this
    > > release, and can it realistically get done by the end of this week?  The
    > > time frame is, of course, flexible at the pleasure of the community – 
but
    > > also, there will be another release in another couple months or so, so 
no
    > > need to rush stuff.
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > --Matt
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    -- 
    
    Jon
    


Reply via email to