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 <aldrinp...@gmail.com> 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 <bbe...@gmail.com> 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 <aldrinp...@gmail.com> > 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 <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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
