Re: Next release NiFi 1.12

[Andy LoPresto]

Here is the discussion thread [1]. 

[1] 
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r2cfeda59f96613c9d1739f4f2a1fd83ab15a4ff77d4659154a45bcac%40%3Cdev.nifi.apache.org%3E
 


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 11:32 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> 
> Martin
> 
> Youll need to subscribe to dev to see this but there is already a discuss
> thread for it.  As I mentioned on slack we just need to do it.  There was
> some items folks were trying to wrap.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:20 AM Martin Ebert 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi community,
>> there are so many great new features waiting to be made available to the
>> whole community as NiFi 1.12 Are there any reasons to wait for a release?
>> 

Re: Next release NiFi 1.12

[Joe Witt]

Martin

Youll need to subscribe to dev to see this but there is already a discuss
thread for it.  As I mentioned on slack we just need to do it.  There was
some items folks were trying to wrap.

Thanks

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:20 AM Martin Ebert 
wrote:

> Hi community,
> there are so many great new features waiting to be made available to the
> whole community as NiFi 1.12 Are there any reasons to wait for a release?
>

Re: Next Release of Apache Nifi

[shweta Aggarwal]

Thanks Joe for the update !!

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Joe Percivall <
joeperciv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> Hello Shweta,
>
> Sorry no has responded to you, but if you have seen the recent activity in
> the Dev user list, we are currently working on cutting a release for 0.5.0.
> There is a preliminary Release Client if you'd like to take a look and give
> some feedback!
>
> Joe
> - - - - - -
> Joseph Percivall
> linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 3:13 AM, shweta 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I wanted to know when is the next major or minor release of Nifi planned.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Shweta
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Next-Release-of-Apache-Nifi-tp6963.html
> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>

Re: Next Release of Apache Nifi

[Joe Percivall]

Hello Shweta,

Sorry no has responded to you, but if you have seen the recent activity in the 
Dev user list, we are currently working on cutting a release for 0.5.0. There 
is a preliminary Release Client if you'd like to take a look and give some 
feedback!

Joe
- - - - - - 
Joseph Percivall
linkedin.com/in/Percivall
e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com



On Sunday, January 31, 2016 3:13 AM, shweta  wrote:



Hi All,

I wanted to know when is the next major or minor release of Nifi planned.

Thanks and Regards,
Shweta



--
View this message in context: 
http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Next-Release-of-Apache-Nifi-tp6963.html
Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Next Release of Apache Nifi

[Tony Kurc]

Shweta,
Here is the dev list email that Joe is referring to:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/nifi-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCA%2BLyY54edrdoxHtpksRyOhCq8hYVgDFx3c4ZCzHcyk3%3D%3D9qx%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com%3E

We found a couple of issues that are still being worked, but I expect
another release candidate soon.

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Joe Percivall <
joeperciv...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> Hello Shweta,
>
> Sorry no has responded to you, but if you have seen the recent activity in
> the Dev user list, we are currently working on cutting a release for 0.5.0.
> There is a preliminary Release Client if you'd like to take a look and give
> some feedback!
>
> Joe
> - - - - - -
> Joseph Percivall
> linkedin.com/in/Percivall
> e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
> On Sunday, January 31, 2016 3:13 AM, shweta 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I wanted to know when is the next major or minor release of Nifi planned.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Shweta
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Next-Release-of-Apache-Nifi-tp6963.html
> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>

Re: Next release?

[Joe Witt]

Team,

As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:

Version 0.4.0

Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
 - Added proper support for tailing log files.
 - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
based on username/password
 - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
 - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
 - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
 - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
 - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
with 1000s of objects
 - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
 - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
 - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
 - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
given component
 - Added SSL support to JMS processors

Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
of 040.

We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.

I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
understand likely target dates for completion.

Thanks
Joe

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea is
> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on with
> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.  But
> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>
> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com> wrote:
>>
>> Joe,
>>
>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and production
>> use?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Rick
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Next release?
>>
>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6
>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>>
>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
>> there.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
>> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
>> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > All,
>> > >
>> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
>> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
>> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>> > > small quick-win
>> > changes
>> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>> > > community.
>> > I
>> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
>> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > -- Mike
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>> > >> scrub
>> > the
>> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > Hi Folks!
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>> > >> > starting a release candidate?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > --
>> > >> > Sean
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >

Re: Next release?

[Oleg Zhurakousky]

May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one must 
never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a consensus 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Ricky,
> 
> Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> 
> Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> 
> Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> privileges for that already?
> 
> Thanks
> Joe
> 
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <ri...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for adding a
>> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been using
>> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues, so it
>> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
>> release on the 19th.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Team,
>>> 
>>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
>>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
>>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
>>> 
>>> Version 0.4.0
>>> 
>>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
>>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
>>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
>>> based on username/password
>>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
>>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
>>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
>>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
>>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
>>> with 1000s of objects
>>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
>>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
>>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
>>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
>>> given component
>>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
>>> 
>>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
>>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
>>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
>>> of 040.
>>> 
>>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
>>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
>>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
>>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
>>> 
>>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
>>> understand likely target dates for completion.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea
>>> is
>>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
>>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
>>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
>>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
>>> with
>>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
>>> But
>>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joe,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
>>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
>>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
>>> production
>>>>> use?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Rick
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56

Re: Next release?

[Alan Jackoway]

I am not a committer, but I think that at a minimum another committer
should sign off on it. I don't mind if a different committer says "looks
good to me, you can merge that," but I don't think committers should put
their own code in without sign off.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Oleg Zhurakousky <
ozhurakou...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> May I suggest something that works so well in multitude of projects - one
> must never merge its own PR, essentially ensuring that there is a consensus
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 3, 2015, at 09:00, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ricky,
> >
> > Might I remind you, Sir, that you have the power to push!  :-)
> >
> > Let's make sure all the deps are understood (how large?) and that
> > licensing is fully accounted for.  As long as you have a good plus one
> > and we're sure its good let's push.  Happy to work with you on it.
> >
> > Also be sure to move the ticket to the 040 release.  Do you have
> > privileges for that already?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Ricky Saltzer <ri...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >> Big +1 for these features! I have a pull request out right now for
> adding a
> >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>. I've been
> using
> >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any issues,
> so it
> >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in for the
> >> release on the 19th.
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Team,
> >>>
> >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current highlights
> >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might have
> >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> >>>
> >>> Version 0.4.0
> >>>
> >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication mechanisms
> >>> based on username/password
> >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions dealing
> >>> with 1000s of objects
> >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> >>> given component
> >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> >>>
> >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please do a
> >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved off
> >>> of 040.
> >>>
> >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I think
> >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> >>>
> >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main
> idea
> >>> is
> >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the
> RC.
> >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> power to
> >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> should
> >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
> >>> with
> >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
> >>> But
> >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> >>>&g

Re: Next release?

[Bryan Bende]

have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0 which
> > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please
> do
> > a
> > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved
> off
> > > >>> of 040.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov 19th
> > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> think
> > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which really
> > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks
> > > >>> Joe
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> main
> > > idea
> > > >>> is
> > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from
> > the
> > > RC.
> > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > > power to
> > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
> > > should
> > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and
> so
> > on
> > > >>> with
> > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can
> > do.
> > > >>> But
> > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> > > defects
> > > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what
> > is
> > > the
> > > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> > > >>> production
> > > >>>>> use?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>> Rick
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> -Original Message-
> > > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
> > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > > >>>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to
> > move
> > > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> > strive
> > > >>> for 6
> > > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> > > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > > discussion
> > > >>>>> there.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>> Joe
> > > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.
> > If
> > > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
> > > though
> > > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > >>>>>> Joe
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> > moser...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> All,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed
> some
> > > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> > "spinning
> > > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> > dumps
> > > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> > > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > > >>>>>> changes
> > > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> > > >>>>>>> community.
> > > >>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like
> > to
> > > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need
> to
> > > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@cloudera.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up
> for
> > > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Next release?

[Aldrin Piri]

t; > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions
> dealing
> > > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events of a
> > > > >>> given component
> > > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0
> which
> > > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.  Please
> > do
> > > a
> > > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be moved
> > off
> > > > >>> of 040.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov
> 19th
> > > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> > think
> > > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which
> really
> > > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > >>> Joe
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> > main
> > > > idea
> > > > >>> is
> > > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so
> from
> > > the
> > > > RC.
> > > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
> > > > power to
> > > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing
> folks
> > > > should
> > > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and
> > so
> > > on
> > > > >>> with
> > > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we
> can
> > > do.
> > > > >>> But
> > > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
> > > > defects
> > > > >>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words,
> what
> > > is
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
> > > > >>> production
> > > > >>>>> use?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>> Rick
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> -Original Message-
> > > > >>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
> > > > >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> > > > >>>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> > > > >>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage
> to
> > > move
> > > > >>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should
> > > strive
> > > > >>> for 6
> > > > >>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those
> of
> > > > >>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
> > > > discussion
> > > > >>>>> there.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>> Joe
> > > > >>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the
> ticket.
> > > If
> > > > >>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be
> awesome
> > > > though
> > > > >>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Thanks
> > > > >>>>>> Joe
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <
> > > moser...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> All,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed
> > some
> > > > >>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the
> > > "spinning
> > > > >>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap
> > > dumps
> > > > >>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made
> some
> > > > >>>>>>> small quick-win
> > > > >>>>>> changes
> > > > >>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
> > > > >>>>>>> community.
> > > > >>>>>> I
> > > > >>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would
> like
> > > to
> > > > >>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>> -- Mike
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <
> joe.w...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need
> > to
> > > > >>>>>>>> scrub
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > > > >>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@cloudera.com
> >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up
> > for
> > > > >>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sean
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Ricky Saltzer
> > > > >> http://www.cloudera.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Next release?

[Joey Echeverria]

t;>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the
>> RC.
>>>>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people
>> power to
>>>>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks
>> should
>>>>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on
>>>>> with
>>>>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.
>>>>> But
>>>>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a
>> defects
>>>>>>> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is
>> the
>>>>>>> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and
>>>>> production
>>>>>>> use?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
>>>>>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Next release?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
>>>>>>> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive
>>>>> for 6
>>>>>>> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
>>>>>>> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for
>> discussion
>>>>>>> there.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
>>>>>>>> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome
>> though
>>>>>>>> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
>>>>>>>>> thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
>>>>>>>>> wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
>>>>>>>>> point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
>>>>>>>>> small quick-win
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>>> that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the
>>>>>>>>> community.
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
>>>>>>>>> see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> -- Mike
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
>>>>>>>>>> scrub
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@cloudera.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Folks!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
>>>>>>>>>>> starting a release candidate?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Sean
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Ricky Saltzer
>>>> http://www.cloudera.com
>> 

Re: Next release?

[Mike Drob]

gt; > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Team,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current
> > highlights
> > > > > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might
> > have
> > > > > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major points:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > > > > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > > > > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication
> > mechanisms
> > > > > >>> based on username/password
> > > > > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as processors.
> > > > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started' process
> > > > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions
> > dealing
> > > > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS processors
> > > > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events
> of a
> > > > > >>> given component
> > > > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0
> > which
> > > > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.
> Please
> > > do
> > > > a
> > > > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be
> moved
> > > off
> > > > > >>> of 040.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target Nov
> > 19th
> > > > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so I
> > > think
> > > > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which
> > really
> > > > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks to
> > > > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > > >>> Joe
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the
> > > main
> > > > > idea
> > > > > >>> is
> > > > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > RC.
> > > > > >>>> Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on
> people
> > > > > power to
> > > > > >>>> verify system level testing and that is part of that testing
> > folks
> > > > > should
> > > > > >>>> do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments
> and
> > > so
> > > > on
> > > > > >>> with
> > > > > >>>> this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we
> > can
> > > > do.
> > > > > >>> But
> > > > > >>>> we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Joe,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > &g

Re: Next release?

[Aldrin Piri]

t; > >> Riemann processor <https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/91>.
> > I've
> > > > been
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > >> it on our internal cluster for the past few weeks without any
> > > > issues,
> > > > > > so it
> > > > > > >> might be worth taking one last look and then possibly merge in
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> release on the 19th.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Team,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> As we work toward an 0.4.0 release here are the current
> > > highlights
> > > > > > >>> I've captured from the current and resolved tickets.  I might
> > > have
> > > > > > >>> missed key points but these seem (to me) like the major
> points:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Version 0.4.0
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Highlights of the 0.4.0 release include:
> > > > > > >>> - Added proper support for tailing log files.
> > > > > > >>> - Updated the framework/UX to support new authentication
> > > mechanisms
> > > > > > >>> based on username/password
> > > > > > >>> - New processor to support Python/Jython scripts as
> processors.
> > > > > > >>> - New processors to capture syslog data received via UDP/TCP
> > > > > > >>> - Improved behavior of Execute and Put SQL processors
> > > > > > >>> - Provided documentation to help the 'Getting Started'
> process
> > > > > > >>> - Improved efficiency and file handling for merges/sessions
> > > dealing
> > > > > > >>> with 1000s of objects
> > > > > > >>> - New processors to List and Fetch data via SFTP
> > > > > > >>> - Improved Kerberos ticket re-registration for HDFS
> processors
> > > > > > >>> - Added processors to interact with Couchbase
> > > > > > >>> - Increased convenience when searching for provenance events
> > of a
> > > > > > >>> given component
> > > > > > >>> - Added SSL support to JMS processors
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Now, we have many outstanding tickets still assigned to 0.4.0
> > > which
> > > > > > >>> are unresolved.  I reassigned many but still many remain.
> > Please
> > > > do
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >>> scan through if you reported them and see which ones can be
> > moved
> > > > off
> > > > > > >>> of 040.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> We released 0.3.0 on Sep 19th.  I suggest we try to target
> Nov
> > > 19th
> > > > > > >>> then for 0.4.0.  There is already quite a lot in this and so
> I
> > > > think
> > > > > > >>> we should get very specific about the items remaining which
> > > really
> > > > > > >>> must be in 040 vs which we can push forward.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I'll keep pairing down the tickets on 040 and pinging folks
> to
> > > > > > >>> understand likely target dates for completion.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > > > >>> Joe
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Joe Witt <
> joe.w...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But
> the
> > > > main
> > > > > > idea
> > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > > >>>> that all who wish to participate in release validation do so
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > RC.
> > > > > 

RE: Next release?

[Rick Braddy]

Joe,

This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects 
perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the 
criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and production use?

Thanks
Rick

-Original Message-
From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
To: dev@nifi.apache.org
Subject: Re: Next release?

Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move towards 
an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6 to 8 week 
release cycles in my view.

We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of processors in 
my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion there.

Thanks
Joe
On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:

> mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If 
> you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though 
> I recognize why that is non-trivial.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some 
> > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning 
> > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps 
> > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some 
> > small quick-win
> changes
> > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.
> I
> > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to 
> > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -- Mike
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to 
> >> scrub
> the
> >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Folks!
> >> >
> >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for 
> >> > starting a release candidate?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Sean
> >> >
> >>
>

RE: Next release?

[Joe Witt]

The current process is outlined in our release guide.  But the main idea is
that all who wish to participate in release validation do so from the RC.
Unit tests are of course run by the builds but we rely on people power to
verify system level testing and that is part of that testing folks should
do.  We obviously can't test all the things and environments and so on with
this model.  The more CI we can get established the better we can do.  But
we have much room for improvement in validating releases.
On Nov 2, 2015 10:00 AM, "Rick Braddy" <rbra...@softnas.com> wrote:

> Joe,
>
> This reminds me... are there any entry or exit criteria (from a defects
> perspective) established for NiFi releases?  In other words, what is the
> criteria for determining when the code is ready for release and production
> use?
>
> Thanks
> Rick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 8:56 AM
> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Next release?
>
> Team...we def need to address or move a good bit of ticketage to move
> towards an RC.  It isn't critical we do it 'now' but we should strive for 6
> to 8 week release cycles in my view.
>
> We should also decouple the framework/app releases from those of
> processors in my view but we can kick off another thread for discussion
> there.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
> On Oct 29, 2015 11:50 AM, "Joe Witt" <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mike - that is good to know.  Look forward to seeing the ticket.  If
> > you can put the thread dumps up that would obviously be awesome though
> > I recognize why that is non-trivial.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some
> > > thread starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning
> > > wheel of death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps
> > > point to the WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some
> > > small quick-win
> > changes
> > > that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.
> > I
> > > will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to
> > > see it in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -- Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to
> > >> scrub
> > the
> > >> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> > >> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey" <bus...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Hi Folks!
> > >> >
> > >> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> > >> > starting a release candidate?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > Sean
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>

Re: Next release?

[Michael Moser]

All,

On an extremely busy cluster that I work with, I've noticed some thread
starvation issues on the NCM.  It manifests as the "spinning wheel of
death" when refreshing the NiFi UI.  Thread and heap dumps point to the
WebClusterManager in the framework. I've made some small quick-win changes
that I'm testing now, but would appreciate feedback from the community.  I
will write up a ticket shortly that explains it, but would like to see it
in 0.4.0 if reviewers agree with the changes.

Thanks,
-- Mike


On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:

> I haven't done it in a while.  Am happy to take it.  We need to scrub the
> items assigned to 040 and pick our must haves ...
> On Oct 29, 2015 9:20 AM, "Sean Busbey"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks!
> >
> > Tomorrow marks 6 weeks since the 0.3.0 release. Any one up for
> > starting a release candidate?
> >
> > --
> > Sean
> >
>