Martin, I understand everyone is anxious to get their hands on the next release, but this thread is exactly how we determine what will be in it. There is an inherent balance in determining which features and fixes need to be included to make the release worth it and which will delay it, and this requires being aware of a large percentage of the community’s needs.
In addition, once a committer has volunteered as release manager (which I believe Joe has already done for this release), they set the pace and will solicit feedback from the community here. So if Joe replies that he wants to perform the release process on Monday, any non-critical tickets (i.e. features, non-security bug fixes, etc.) which are not merged will not go into 1.12.0. However, we often do wait to perform the release process until specifically enumerated features are reviewed and merged so they can be included. One way to encourage the timely release of the next version is to offer code reviews and other community activities where possible, because that helps move everything forward. In the early days of the project, the user base and the contributor base overlapped highly, and it was easier to solicit reviews on all contributions because the majority of the other active people were also developers. Over the last 5 years, both the contributor base and the user base have grown substantially, but the user base has grown far faster than the contributor base. For this reason, we have many more people asking for features, releases, etc. than can contribute them. Part of being a community is helping where possible, with the understanding that not everyone will have the time, expertise, or desire to do all tasks. But the most constructive way to speed the release process is for the outstanding tickets whose inclusion is determined to be necessary to be reviewed and merged. Andy LoPresto alopre...@apache.org alopresto.apa...@gmail.com He/Him PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > On Jul 2, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ** that's not to say I'll try to hold up a release vote over it, but there > is a good reason behind asking that it be included in the last round of > reviews. > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:07 PM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> #4217 is something I need because I'm planning to build a Cassandra-based >> DistributedMapCache service for my client and contribute it back once we >> determine that it's stable enough to give back. >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 9:26 PM Martin Ebert <martin.irg...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mike, >>> I suggest we wrap this up and only include your PRs in version 1.13 Are >>> there any objections to release NiFi 1.12? We should not keep the >>> community >>> waiting any longer. >>> >>> Best, >>> Martin >>> >>> Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 10. Juni 2020, >>> 00:14: >>> >>>> I would like to refactor the OAuth2TokenProvider controller service to >>> use >>>> the class that InvokeHttp now delegates to (OkHttpClientBuilderUtils?) >>> for >>>> SSL configuration. I could get a pretty fast turn around on that one. >>>> >>>> Also, would like to see if we can get >>>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4217 and >>>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4204 reviewed and merged. >>>> >>>> The latter is a nice-to-have that can wait until 1.13 if need be. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 1:32 PM Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Joe, >>>>> >>>>> I do think there are a couple of things that I’d like to see make it >>> into >>>>> 1.12. >>>>> I worked on NIFI-7476 [1] and it’s been merged to master. But it adds >>> a >>>>> couple of fields to the data model for Process Groups. So that, >>>>> unfortunately, means we need to update the data model in NiFi Registry >>>> [3] >>>>> and release that before releasing NiFi. Otherwise, those changes can >>> be >>>>> made in NiFi but when a group pushed to the registry, the changes >>> will be >>>>> lost. I’m working NIFIREG-398 now and should have a PR up soon. Also, >>>>> related is NIFI-7509 [4], which I have a PR up for. >>>>> >>>>> I am hoping to have all of this merged by end of the week. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Mark >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7476 >>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7509 >>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFIREG-398 >>>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7509 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 9, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org >>> <mailto: >>>>> alopre...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Joe. I could use a reviewer for [1], and I’m taking a look at a >>>>> couple other things that have gone in recently but should be ready >>> very >>>>> soon. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4228 < >>>>> https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/4228> >>>>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto >>>>> alopre...@apache.org<mailto:alopre...@apache.org> >>>>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >>>>> He/Him >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 9, 2020, at 10:21 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> Took me a bit longer than planned but am back in position to help >>> drive a >>>>> 1.12 release. >>>>> >>>>> Anything we're still trying to wrap we need to wait for? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:03 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ok thanks for the heads up Bence >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:50 AM Simon Bence <simonbence....@gmail.com >>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> If the community decides to go on with 1.11.5, I kindly ask to include >>>>> NIFI-7292 in order to fix the issue reported in NIFI-7454. Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7454 < >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7454> >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7292 < >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7292> >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Bence >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020. May 18., at 16:18, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello >>>>> >>>>> I will be unavailable to conduct release management now for probably >>> the >>>>> next week or two. I'll come back to this thread when able to dive in. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:11 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> K - sounds good. Will circle back in a few days. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:56 PM Andy LoPresto <alopre...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for starting this thread Joe. I agree the back-pressure fix is >>>>> one >>>>> that will help the community a lot. I am currently working on a couple >>>>> security features which would also greatly benefit users. I’d like to >>>>> see >>>>> these get in 1.12.0 if possible, especially as there are some changes >>>>> that >>>>> have already gone into master which I don’t think are ready to be >>>>> released >>>>> and then required to be supported. Some are already up as PRs. >>>>> >>>>> My preferences, ranked: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Wait a few days on 1.12.0, release it with the new security >>>>> features >>>>> and the back-pressure fix (along with the other 170+) >>>>> 2. Release 1.11.5 immediately for the back-pressure fix >>>>> 3. Release 1.12.0 immediately for the back-pressure fix and the >>>>> security >>>>> features have to wait for 1.13.0 >>>>> >>>>> Andy LoPresto >>>>> alopre...@apache.org >>>>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com >>>>> He/Him >>>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 >>>>> >>>>> On May 13, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Team, >>>>> >>>>> A couple folks have recently reported slowness in the UI in the >>>>> recent >>>>> releases particularly with larger and more production style flows. >>>>> It >>>>> appears to be related to when back pressure prediction is enabled >>>>> [1]. >>>>> >>>>> It also appears this is already fixed [2] and on 1.12.0-SNAPSHOT. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to produce a release which captures this. It isn't clear >>>>> that >>>>> 1.12 is ready to roll but happy to look into that path if so. There >>>>> are >>>>> already 177+ closed JIRAs on that thing!! >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively if easier I could kick out another on 1.11 which would >>>>> be >>>>> 1.11.5 and go looking opportunistically for other bits to grab as >>>>> well. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7437 >>>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-7087 >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joe >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
