These tickets [1][2] address the incorrect validation errors we were seeing for 
processors that include the Input Required annotation. These were bugs that 
slipped through the NIFI-810 the review. Would be good to include if possible 
but I understand we need to draw the line somewhere.

As for NIFI-655, I've been struggling getting an LDAP server stood up that uses 
2 way SSL. Hopefully we can get that squared away soon and wrap this one up. :)

Matt

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1198
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1203

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:23 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Given the testing to NIFI-1192 and review of NIFI-631 done already
> both are lower risk I think.
> 
> NIFI-1107 seems very useful and helpful but we do need to be careful
> given that we know this one is already in use and this is a
> substantive change.
> 
> If there are folks that can dig into review/testing of NIFI-1107 that
> would be great.  Waiting for word on NIFI-655 readiness then I think
> we should go cold and just focus on testing an RC.
> 
> Thanks
> Joe
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. I know there has already been a good deal of discussion about
>> design on all these.
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Aldrin Piri <aldrinp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> No qualms here.  If they look good to go while the work and testing
>>> surrounding NIFI-655 wraps up, they might as well be included. Would not
>>> want to delay the release should any of these become protracted in terms of
>>> iterations.
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> I was reviewing github PRs and wondering whether anyone objected to
>>>> slipping a couple that look like they're very close into 0.4.0.
>>>> 
>>>> NIFI-1192 (#131)
>>>> NIFI-631 (#113)
>>>> NIFI-1107 (#192)
>>>> 
>>>> I should have some review cycles tonight. Lots of comments on them all,
>>> and
>>>> have good "momentum".
>>>> 
>>>> Tony
>>> 

Reply via email to