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 <al...@cloudera.com> 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 < > ozhurakou...@hortonworks.com> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 <ri...@cloudera.com> > > 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> > 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" <rbra...@softnas.com> > 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:joe.w...@gmail.com] > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM > > >>>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org > > >>>>> 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" <joe.w...@gmail.com> 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 < > moser...@gmail.com > > > > > >>>>>> 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 <joe.w...@gmail.com> > > >>> 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" <bus...@cloudera.com> > > >>> 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 > > > > > >
