+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 <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 >>
