All, I have started going through JIRA and identifying remaining issues against the 0.x branch to prepare for a release, and I've worked a couple of the JSON.org Cat-x license issues on that branch.
I would like to volunteer to be release manager for a 0.7.3 release, if you will let me try. ;-) -- Mike On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Joe Skora <jsk...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for the confusion regarding 1.0.0-BETA vs 1.0.0, my bad. > > As for stability, I don't mean build and test stability but real world > stability feedback that has led to various repository fixes including the > 1.x line transition to the schema based provenance and newly refactored > provenance repository. > > Again, apologies for the beta confusion. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Joe > > > > 1.0.0 was not a beta release. > > > > 1.0.0-beta was a beta release. > > > > The intent of the language was we support the old major line for one year > > once there is a major release. It is of course imperative to respect > that > > folks cannot migrate as quickly as we would always like. But this sort > of > > concern is precisely why we have such a document. > > > > I propose we clarify the language to clearly and simply state that once a > > new major release line release has occurred we will support the old > release > > line for up to one year. This does not distinguish between minor or > > incremental. There is already language for that. > > > > The stability comment is an unclear line to debate. The act of voting > on a > > release is the point at which the community agrees and asserts the > fitness > > of a release. We have no other open and clear mechanism for doing so. > > > > I think the question of whether an 0.8 can happen is no longer tied to > the > > recent portions of this thread. It would need am RM and vote. > > > > As I mentioned the other day I'll go ahead and update the versioning > > guidance barring any objection or alternative proposal. I'll wait > another > > day or so in case you would like to propose alternative language for the > > commitment we make as a community to our users and ourselves. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > On Feb 27, 2017 9:42 AM, "Joe Skora" <jsk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I think there's a couple considerations related to continuing the 0.x > > line. > > > > > > First, as JoeW mentioned the Release Line Management page [1] says we > > > support a major release for one year, so we should plan to support > 0.7.x > > > for one year from its July 13, 2016 release date [2]. > > > > > > Also, since we considered the 1.0.0 release a beta [3], the 0.x line > was > > > due any fixes, features, and enhancements through the release of 1.1.0 > on > > > November 30th. So the features and fixes through November 30th should > be > > > backported where possible and appropriate and after that any fixes > > relating > > > to security or data loss should be backported for the life of the 0.x > > line. > > > > > > Next, I agree with JoeW that we don't want old lines to be a burden on > > the > > > community, but I suggest we consider the user base and how practical it > > is > > > to expect them to upgrade. From 0.x to 1.x is a major transition, so I > > > think we should give more time for that transition than we will might > for > > > 1.1 to 1.2. > > > > > > Finally, 0.x only recently became stable for my users in the last > couple > > of > > > months, based on the 0.7.1 release with patches added for stability and > > > corruption issues that is similar to Brandon's list of outstanding 0.x > > > tickets. Since the non-beta 1.1.0 release is less than 3 months old > and > > > the transition from 0.x to 1.x is so significant, regardless of our > > release > > > policy I would propose we carry on the 0.x line on until 1.x has > settled > > > and been shown to be similarly stable. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Joe > > > > > > [1] > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Git+ > > > Branching+and+Release+Line+Management > > > [2] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/46678ade742887c624c14faf16d187 > > > e039827121e35d08f468c3cbfe@%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E > > > [3] > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/91a4c272ddf2e80ec2fefd95c2a1df > > > 6c37689f4290aba5bdb81afd35@%3Cusers.nifi.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > Based on Jira, there are 20 tickets marked as fixed in 0.8.0 and > > nowhere > > > > else in the 0.x line[1]. Highlights from these include: > > > > > > > > - NIFI-2890 - Provenance Repository corruption > > > > - NIFI-2920 - Swapped FlowFiles are not removed from content repo > > > when a > > > > queue is emptied. > > > > - NIFI-3055 - StandardRecordWriter can throw > UTFDataFormatException > > > > - NIFI-3424 - CLONE for 0.x - Unable to generate Provenance Event > > > > because FlowFile UUID is not set > > > > - NIFI-3230 - Get/Put JMS broken for simple ActiveMQ SSL URIs > > > > - NIFI-3403 - NPE in InvokeHTTP > > > > - NIFI-3362 - Update FlowConfiguration.xsd TimePeriod to match > > > > FormatUtils > > > > - NIFI-2861 - ControlRate should accept more than one flow file > per > > > > execution > > > > - NIFI-3350 - Reduce NiFi startup time by streamlining > documentation > > > > extraction > > > > > > > > Are we willing to port all of the tickets from [1] to the 0.7 branch? > > Or > > > > rather, which of them would not make the cut? There are a couple of > > > things > > > > on the list that seem like new features as opposed to pure bug > fixes... > > > > although I suppose the difference between a "bug fix" and an > > > "improvement" > > > > is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. > > > > > > > > Ultimately, as long as there's a release covering these issues > > > (everything > > > > except the NIFI-2991[2] stuff) I don't particularly care what it's > > > called. > > > > If there are issues left out and I need to run a SNAPSHOT of some > sort > > to > > > > get them, then a further 0.x release doesn't help me anyway, and I'll > > > > withdraw my suggestion. > > > > > > > > Brandon > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > > > 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.8.0%20and% > > > > 20fixVersion%20not%20in%20(0.2.1%2C%200.3.0%2C%200.4.0%2C0. > > > > 4.1%2C0.5.0%2C0.5.1%2C0.6.0%2C%200.6.1%2C0.7.0%2C%200.7.1% > > > > 2C%200.7.2%2C%200.7.3)%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C% > > 20priority%20DESC%2C% > > > > 20created%20ASC > > > > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2991 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:49 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The 0.8 fixes for licensing remove a processor (gettwitter) at this > > > > point. > > > > > That I feel requires at least minor. But avoiding that for now and > > > doing > > > > > the bug fix things and doing 073 seems legit. > > > > > > > > > > Will wait and see if anyone else has a different interpretation on > > the > > > > > intent of our one year version guidance and then update the wiki if > > > > appears > > > > > we have consensus. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2017 7:19 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <alopre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Especially as nothing that would be going into the 0.x release > is a > > > > major > > > > > > feature or changes compatibility (from my understanding), I would > > +1 > > > > the > > > > > > 0.7.3 suggestion. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 Feb 24, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Tony Kurc <trk...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is probably worth clarifying the intent of the support > > > > > language. > > > > > > I believe the intent was to support 0.x for a year after 1.x was > > > > > released. > > > > > > That was how I initially read the document you mentioned. But > > after a > > > > > > re-read, I'd echo your concerns about dragging old major lines > > along. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Brandon, > > > > > > > > > > > > My concern is the language used when we published this "We > support > > > the > > > > > > newest major release line (0.x, 1.x) and any previous major > release > > > > > > lines for up to one year since the last minor release (0.6.x, > > 1.5.y) > > > > > > in that line" within this document [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I read that now it seems like we're saying "if we make a minor > > > > > > release we're going to support that for up to a year" and so each > > > time > > > > > > we create a new minor line on a given major line it means we are > > > > > > resetting the clock. > > > > > > > > > > > > I do not believe we should give old major lines, such as 0.x, the > > > > > > ability to drag on the community indefinitely as that reads. I > > > > > > believe it should be that we support a given major release line > for > > > up > > > > > > to one year one after a new major release line is provided. > > > > > > > > > > > > So would like to hear peoples thoughts on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > If an 0.8 release is to occur the items called out are things > which > > > > > > impact licensing only (specifically the no longer allowed cat-x > > json > > > > > > library). I would be far more comfortable with 0.7.3 release > which > > > > > > would be fixing whatever bugs have been addressed. That avoids > the > > > > > > concern I noted above for this case though i'd still like us to > > > > > > clarify that language/intent anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Brandon DeVries <b...@jhu.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > > > The only unresolved tickets against the 0.8.0 release[1] are for > > the > > > > > > removal of code... With that in mind, does anyone object to > trying > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > push > > > > > > > > > > > > for this (possibly final) 0.x release? > > > > > > > > > > > > Brandon > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20% > > > > > > > > > > > > 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.8.0%20AND% > > 20resolution%20%3D% > > > > > > 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20due%20ASC%2C%20priority% > > > > > > 20DESC%2C%20created%20ASC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
