Is there a good spot for us to put instructions on how to build the
Twitter processor and/or the Social Media NAR in the meantime? Maybe a
Wiki page or something simple to say "go to this directory, run this
Maven command, drop the NAR into your deployment..." ?

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Team,
>
> We appear to be very close.  Andy is working NIFI-3024 but otherwise
> it is focus on testing.
>
> I'm going to prep the RC and release notes now.  Unfortunately the
> twitter changes for json.org will need to remain.  Consensus forming
> on the legal-discuss thread regarding a grace period has been elusive
> and we're already prepared to make the right steps so we'll just need
> to take that on by being empathetic to the user base.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andre <andre-li...@fucs.org> wrote:
>> Andy,
>>
>> Great to see NIFI-3050 implemented and certainly good news that NiFi 1.1.0
>> is set to include a number of security related improvements.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Just updating this thread that NIFI-3050 [1] and NIFI-3051 [2] have been
>>> added to my plate for this release. Coordinated with Joe Witt and they
>>> should both be included.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3050
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3051
>>>
>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> alopre...@apache.org
>>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com <alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>*
>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Team
>>>
>>> There is a thread on apache legal-discuss that might allow for a
>>> graceperiod of continued usage of the json library.  Am going to keep
>>> a close eye on this and if VP Legal approves we'll be able to keep the
>>> twitter processors in which is definitely a good thing.  Will advise
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've noticed an issue with the per-instance class loading capability
>>> introduced in NIFI-2909 where the additional classpath resources can get
>>> incorrectly removed from the class loader.
>>>
>>> I was able to reproduced this with a unit test and have a fix ready. I
>>> believe this is important and needs to go in for the 1.1 release, going to
>>> re-open NIFI-2909 and submit a PR shortly.
>>>
>>> -Bryan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Matt Gilman <matt.c.gil...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have two items that I would like to wrap up prior to creating an RC for
>>> 1.1.0. NIFI-2949 addresses some UX issues around Remote Process Group port
>>> configuration. The work is already completed and I will be reviewing it
>>> this today. Additionally, following recent interest on the mailing list,
>>> I'd like to knock out NIFI-3020. This will allow an admin to configure a
>>> strategy for user identity when logging in via LDAP. Specifically, it will
>>> support usage of the DN (the default and current implementation) as well as
>>> the username the user logged in as. I should be able to have a PR up for
>>> this work later today.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2949
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3020
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The code is within the twitter4j library itself.  I filed a request to
>>> twitter4jg.  The most likely case is we will need to submit a PR to them.
>>> However, I don't see this as something that should delay the release.  We
>>> can provide instructions for folks wanting to use the processor during
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>> time we cannot make it available in a convenient manner.  I will provide
>>>
>>> a
>>>
>>> meaningful comment about this in release notes and pointers on what folks
>>> can do in the meantime.
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2016 7:41 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <alopre...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand there was a discussion thread within the NiFi community
>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>> this as well and I missed responding to that at that time. It just
>>>
>>> seems
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> me like JSON processing is necessary for GetTwitter, which is
>>>
>>> incredibly
>>>
>>> useful for demonstrating NiFi’s ability to read from a high volume
>>>
>>> stream
>>>
>>> out of the box. With NIFI-3019 (Remove GetTwitter from default build),
>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>> there any related effort to substitute an acceptable replacement JSON
>>> library to restore this functionality?
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019
>>>
>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> alopre...@apache.org
>>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com <alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>*
>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and
>>> NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we
>>> investigated some alternate TLS config options for the new version of
>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>> client library.
>>>
>>> Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using
>>> Johnzon [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the
>>>
>>> mailing
>>>
>>> list thread?
>>>
>>> [1] https://johnzon.apache.org/
>>> [2] https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-
>>>
>>> summary.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> alopre...@apache.org
>>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com <alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>*
>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Reply via email to