Team Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to 1.1.0. Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had. The most notable impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default build. It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but we won't distribute binaries that have it.
I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items. I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone have any outstanding items? Thanks Joe On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: Ryan Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and start a vote in the next week or two at most. I'm going through the tickets again now. There is also a new issue of the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and becoming Category-X. Am looking into that now. Thanks Joe On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <ryan.wa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1? > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Team, >> >> Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 >> release. There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are >> awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is >> good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with >> what makes it in and keep working it down. So let's please shoot for >> a couple weeks from now. If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it. >> >> Thanks >> Joe >> >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Team, >> > >> > There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0. Let's >> > avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion. >> > Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be >> > able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the >> > list grow. >> > >> > Thanks >> > joe >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <edgardo.v...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Joe, >> >> >> >> Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an example. >> All >> >> mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Edgardo >> >> >> >> On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Edgardo, >> >>> >> >>> You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that >> >>> through review. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks >> >>> Joe >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega < edgardo.v...@gmail.com >> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal was >> try >> >>> to >> >>> > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the >> >>> important >> >>> > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the >> release >> >>> > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is >> really >> >>> > huge. >> >>> > >> >>> > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in >> the >> >>> > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only >> trying to >> >>> > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do >> >>> better. >> >>> > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and >> make >> >>> it >> >>> > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great this >> >>> > community is. >> >>> > >> >>> > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to strengthen >> the >> >>> > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it was >> >>> > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the >> participation >> >>> in >> >>> > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't >> want >> >>> to >> >>> > see that happen here. >> >>> > >> >>> > Cheers, >> >>> > >> >>> > Edgardo >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org >> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> Edgardo, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a >> committer I >> >>> can >> >>> >> share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having >> >>> already >> >>> >> taken many of the steps you suggest. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should >> not be >> >>> >> seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most >> of us >> >>> >> will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our >> peers >> >>> and >> >>> >> some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long >> time >> >>> and >> >>> >> we are working to improve this pipeline. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> It was therefore no coincidence that I browsed most of the PRs >> >>> performing >> >>> >> a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the >> current >> >>> >> code base. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of >> stalled >> >>> and >> >>> >> superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8). >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master contain a >> >>> series >> >>> >> of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit from >> a >> >>> >> release sooner rather than later. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is >> good to >> >>> >> have you here. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Andre >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega < >> edgardo.v...@gmail.com >> >>> <javascript:;>> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are currently >> >>> open. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I >> believe >> >>> to >> >>> >> be >> >>> >> > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could be >> a >> >>> >> forcing >> >>> >> > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more >> >>> willing >> >>> >> to >> >>> >> > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able >> accepted >> >>> >> and >> >>> >> > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in >> progress >> >>> >> is a >> >>> >> > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged >> with >> >>> the >> >>> >> > community. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers >> at >> >>> all. >> >>> >> I >> >>> >> > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't >> think I >> >>> >> > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get >> that >> >>> >> > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule >> about >> >>> >> > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over >> by a >> >>> core >> >>> >> > contributor if they think it worthwhile. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was quick >> to >> >>> >> > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some additional >> >>> code. >> >>> >> It >> >>> >> > was a great PR experience. >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Cheers, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Edgardo >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall < >> >>> joeperciv...@yahoo.com <javascript:;>. >> >>> >> > invalid> wrote: >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull >> Requests >> >>> >> that >> >>> >> > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 >> version. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR >> count) >> >>> >> > should >> >>> >> > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing takes a >> >>> >> > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and >> contributor. >> >>> In >> >>> >> > order >> >>> >> > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a >> couple >> >>> days. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and bug >> >>> fixes >> >>> >> > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth >> holding up >> >>> a >> >>> >> > 1.1.0 >> >>> >> > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an >> added >> >>> bonus >> >>> >> > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs >> already >> >>> >> open >> >>> >> > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Joe >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > - - - - - - >> >>> >> > > Joseph Percivall >> >>> >> > > linkedin.com/in/Percivall >> >>> >> > > e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com <javascript:;> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt < >> joe.w...@gmail.com >> >>> <javascript:;>> >> >>> >> > > wrote: >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > There are less than 30 right now. Many of the roughly 90+ JIRAs >> >>> >> > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed or >> just >> >>> >> > > had fix versions removed. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to deal >> with >> >>> >> > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items. >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > Thanks >> >>> >> > > Joe >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega < >> >>> edgardo.v...@gmail.com <javascript:;>> >> >>> >> > > wrote: >> >>> >> > > > Joe, >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over the >> next >> >>> >> > bunch >> >>> >> > > of >> >>> >> > > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that. >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Cheers, >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Edgardo >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt < >> joe.w...@gmail.com >> >>> <javascript:;>> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > >> Team, >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features. I >> would >> >>> >> like >> >>> >> > > >> to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much >> based >> >>> on >> >>> >> > > >> where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new >> Apache >> >>> NiFi >> >>> >> > > >> 1.2.0 version. We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 >> week >> >>> >> release >> >>> >> > > >> schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi >> 1.2.0 >> >>> this >> >>> >> > > >> way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on >> >>> this. In >> >>> >> > > >> the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be >> seeing a >> >>> >> lot >> >>> >> > > >> of JIRA/issue updates to move version around. >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> Thanks >> >>> >> > > >> Joe >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc < >> trk...@gmail.com >> >>> <javascript:;>> >> >>> >> wrote: >> >>> >> > > >> > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing >> for >> >>> it. >> >>> >> > > >> > >> >>> >> > > >> > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com >> >>> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> >> > > >> > >> >>> >> > > >> >> Team, >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the >> master >> >>> >> line >> >>> >> > > now >> >>> >> > > >> >> and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a >> >>> release. >> >>> >> > > There >> >>> >> > > >> >> are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which are >> >>> open. >> >>> >> > I'm >> >>> >> > > >> >> going to go through them and remove fix versions where >> >>> >> appropriate. >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if >> >>> someone >> >>> >> > else >> >>> >> > > >> >> would like to take that on please advise. >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> Thanks >> >>> >> > > >> >> Joe >> >>> >> > > >> >> >> >>> >> > > >> >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > -- >> >>> >> > > > Cheers, >> >>> >> > > > >> >>> >> > > > Edgardo >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > -- >> >>> >> > Cheers, >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > Edgardo >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > -- >> >>> > Cheers, >> >>> > >> >>> > Edgardo >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Edgardo >> >> >> >> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>
