Also looking forward to using the TransformJSON processor: https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/TransformJSON.java
Nice choice with JOLT there. We're doing a custom one for jolt transformers for that now. Ryan On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Ryan H <rhendrickson.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm looking forward to 0.7.. Plenty of awesome features, like SSL with the > AMQP processors (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1521) > > Thanks! > > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:52 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ok just to wrap up this thread. Will push a couple efforts >> 1) Will start pulling together an 0.7 release >> 2) Will update the roadmap slide to put in tentative timing/major >> elements in the roadmap on the wiki page >> >> And as for whether 0.7 ends up being the last release of the 0.x line >> will just depend on 1.0 release timing and community interest in doing >> an 0.8. We don't have to decide that now. >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > I think Mike’s read on the published guidelines is correct, but I agree >> with >> > Joe that if we release 0.7 two weeks before 1.0, feature development >> that is >> > merged after 0.7 does not need to be backported. Maybe this is >> something we >> > should clarify on the wiki once we reach a consensus. >> > >> > >> > Andy LoPresto >> > alopre...@apache.org >> > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >> > >> > On May 17, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > I agree with the letter of the reading so this thread is to discuss >> > the spirit of it and how to best apply it to our situation and >> > community now. Whether it is 'just before' or 'just after' or 'same >> > time' I think it is within the intent. I just want us to be clear >> > what it is. It is extra work to ensure each PR is applied to both >> > lines and extra work increases contributor and reviewer burden so we >> > should be mindful of that as it is a dragging force. We also need to >> > keep in mind that with 1.x we have Java 8 as a minimum and so there >> > are cases which will not apply to both and we don't want folks to >> > avoid using Java 8 features just so it can apply to both. >> > >> > My preference is that we have 0.7 as the last planned feature release >> > in 0.x and with that in mind we need to choose to have it be a bit >> > before, a bit after, or at the same time as the 1.x release. I >> > personally am comfortable with what I proposed for 0.7 vs 1.0 timing >> > but I am fine if the consensus is to release the last 0.x and 1.0 at >> > the same time. Just hoping to avoid needing to have another feature >> > release on 0.x after 0.7 other than some special request that might >> > come up later (which is also discussed in the support doc). >> > >> > I also agree the release process for 1.0 will be significant as it >> > will include important new features. Definitely need folks testing >> > out and providing feedback on the features early and often. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Joe >> > >> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > The way I read the release support document, I don't think the feature >> > cut-off for the 0.x branch happens when we confirm a release date for >> 1.0, >> > I think it occurs once we actually release 1.0. Maybe the cut-off can >> > happen once we declare the first 1.0 release candidate. I'm sure we >> will >> > spend significant time doing testing and bug fixes on 1.0 release >> > candidates. If I recall, we spent 2 weeks on 0.6.1 release candidates. >> > >> > -- Mike >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I believe that is right Andy. The support guide articulates that we >> > could do a feature release upon request if there was some specific >> > need a community member had but that otherwise the only releases on an >> > older line still supported would be focused on security/data loss type >> > items. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Joe >> > >> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > This schedule seems appropriate to me. Once 0.7.0 is released and we >> > >> > confirm >> > >> > the release date for 1.0, feature development is completely targeted to >> > >> > 1.0, >> > >> > correct? Security and data loss bug fixes would still be backported, but >> > >> > new >> > >> > features would not. >> > >> > Andy LoPresto >> > alopre...@apache.org >> > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >> > >> > On May 17, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Ok - i'm good with an 0.7 release too and think it is a good idea. I >> > am happy to RM the release. >> > >> > I'd like to select a date at which we're happy to call the 0.x line >> > then feature complete which means 0.7 would be the last feature >> > bearing 0.x release and from then on it would be bug fixes only >> > consistent withe support model. To do that I think we should feel >> > reasonably confident that the 1.x release is close. So let's say we >> > did an 0.7 release early June - say first week of June. I'd like us >> > to say then that 1.x is targeted to early July. >> > >> > If this seems like a reasonable path I'll start filling out the >> > tragically never updated roadmap wiki page [1] with the 0.7 target, >> > 1.x target, and put some placeholder/tentatives for the 1.1 and beyond >> > targets. Will wait for additional inputs. >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58851850 >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > Joe >> > >> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Oleg Zhurakousky >> > <ozhurakou...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> > >> > Agreed! I would like to see 0.7 within 2-3 weeks as there are a lot of >> > improvements and new features/components in it already, and would like >> to >> > give it some miles before 1.0. >> > >> > Oleg >> > >> > On May 17, 2016, at 4:02 PM, James Wing <jvw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I'm definitely in favor of releasing 0.7.0, but I don't think we need be >> > rigid about the schedule. If delaying 0.7.0 a few weeks (2-4?) helps >> > >> > pace >> > >> > us towards a 1.0 in mid- to late-Summer, that seems reasonable to me. >> Do >> > we believe that is still a likely target? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > James >> > >> > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > Team, >> > >> > Want to start zeroing in on the details of the next releases. We had >> > a good set of discussions around this back in January and have since >> > been executing along this general path [1]. >> > >> > On the 0.x line the next release would be 0.7.0. There does appear to >> > be a lot of useful improvements/features/fixes there now and it is >> > time to do a release according to our general 6-8 week approach. >> > However, given all the effort going into 1.x I'd like to get a sense >> > of what the community preference is. >> > >> > On the 1.0 line the release is coming into focus. Some things have >> > moved into 1.x and some things look like they'd slide to the right of >> > 1.x as is to be expected. For example distributed durability (HA >> > Data) looks like a good thing to do post 1.0 given the substantive >> > changes present from the new HA clustering approach and multi-tenant >> > authorization. I'd also like to dive in and liberally apply Apache >> > Yetus annotations [2] to all the things so we can be really explicit >> > about what parts we can more freely evolve going forward. We've been >> > a bit awkwardly hamstrung thus far without these so they should help >> > greatly to better convey intent. >> > >> > For those really interested in things coming in the 1.0 release please >> > take a look through the JIRAs currently there and provide comments on >> > what is important to you, what you'd like to see moved out, in, etc.. >> > [3]. At this point there are still a lot of things which will likely >> > need to move out to allow the release to occur in a timely fashion. >> > >> > Also, keep in mind our stated release line/support model as found here >> > >> > [4]. >> > >> > >> > [1] >> > >> > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201601.mbox/%3CCALJK9a4dMw9PyrrihpPwM7DH3R_4v8b%3Dr--LDhK7y5scob-0og%40mail.gmail.com%3E >> > >> > >> > [2] >> > >> > >> https://yetus.apache.org/documentation/0.2.1/audience-annotations-apidocs/ >> > >> > >> > [3] >> > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1887?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%201.0.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI >> > >> > >> > [4] >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Git+Branching+and+Release+Line+Management >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > Joe >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >
