RE: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Peter Wicks (pwicks)]

Just for clarification, "We really need to avoid the practice of setting fix 
versions without traction", would mean don't set a version number until after 
we've submitted a PR? Until after the PR has been closed? Other?

Thanks,
  Peter

-Original Message-
From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM
To: dev@nifi.apache.org
Subject: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

team,

On the users lists we had an ask of when we are planning to cut a
1.2.0 release.  And someone else asked me recently off-list.

There are 45 open JIRAs tagged to it as of now.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20DESC

I'd be favorable to going through and seeing if we can start the motions for a 
1.2.0 release and which are ones we can wait for and which we should have in 
1.2.0 for sure.

Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off on a 1.2.0 release?

A non trivial number of the JIRAs are for things which have or do not have PRs 
but have no review traction.  We really need to avoid the practice of setting 
fix versions without traction on this as otherwise it holds up the releases.

Thanks
Joe

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Peter,

This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open.  But the
way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless they
really should block a release without resolution or if due to some
roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that is
tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many things which pop up
throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided.  That is to
say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the act of
merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed.

>From the release management point of view:
This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really
difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a release as
pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear as
though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly
releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone
would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten the PR
and/or review traction necessary.

>From the contributor point of view:
If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to end
up in a release.  But being an RTC community we need and want peer
review before the code is submitted.  Some contributions are frankly
hard to get peer review on or simply take time for someone to
volunteer to do.  PRs which are difficult to test, lack testing, are
related to systems or environments which are not easily replicated,
etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review for.  Also, the
community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes the hygiene of a given
PR isn't great.  So our 'patch available' and 'open PR' count ticks
up.  We need reviews/feedback as much as we need contributions so it
is important for folks that want those contributions in to build
meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions.  This helps
build a network of contributors/reviewers and improves the timeliness
of reviews.  Long story short here is that because at times PRs can
sit too long sometimes people put a fix version on the JIRA so it acts
as a sort of 'gating function' on the release.  This I am saying is
the practice that should not occur (given the thoughts above).  We
should instead take the issue of how to more effectively
triage/review/provide feedback/and manage expectations for
contributions so contributors don't feel like their stuff will just
sit forever.

Does that make sense and seem fair?

Thanks
Joe



On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Peter Wicks (pwicks)  wrote:
> Just for clarification, "We really need to avoid the practice of setting fix 
> versions without traction", would mean don't set a version number until after 
> we've submitted a PR? Until after the PR has been closed? Other?
>
> Thanks,
>   Peter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM
> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> Subject: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?
>
> team,
>
> On the users lists we had an ask of when we are planning to cut a
> 1.2.0 release.  And someone else asked me recently off-list.
>
> There are 45 open JIRAs tagged to it as of now.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20DESC
>
> I'd be favorable to going through and seeing if we can start the motions for 
> a 1.2.0 release and which are ones we can wait for and which we should have 
> in 1.2.0 for sure.
>
> Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off on a 1.2.0 release?
>
> A non trivial number of the JIRAs are for things which have or do not have 
> PRs but have no review traction.  We really need to avoid the practice of 
> setting fix versions without traction on this as otherwise it holds up the 
> releases.
>
> Thanks
> Joe

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andy LoPresto]

As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically setting fix versions 
and then not meeting them, I second Joe's point about it holding up releases. 
Better to get the PR out, reviewed, and merged *before* setting the fix version 
in my opinion. 

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

> On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt  wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open.  But the
> way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless they
> really should block a release without resolution or if due to some
> roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that is
> tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many things which pop up
> throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided.  That is to
> say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the act of
> merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed.
> 
> From the release management point of view:
> This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really
> difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a release as
> pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear as
> though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly
> releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone
> would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten the PR
> and/or review traction necessary.
> 
> From the contributor point of view:
> If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to end
> up in a release.  But being an RTC community we need and want peer
> review before the code is submitted.  Some contributions are frankly
> hard to get peer review on or simply take time for someone to
> volunteer to do.  PRs which are difficult to test, lack testing, are
> related to systems or environments which are not easily replicated,
> etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review for.  Also, the
> community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes the hygiene of a given
> PR isn't great.  So our 'patch available' and 'open PR' count ticks
> up.  We need reviews/feedback as much as we need contributions so it
> is important for folks that want those contributions in to build
> meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions.  This helps
> build a network of contributors/reviewers and improves the timeliness
> of reviews.  Long story short here is that because at times PRs can
> sit too long sometimes people put a fix version on the JIRA so it acts
> as a sort of 'gating function' on the release.  This I am saying is
> the practice that should not occur (given the thoughts above).  We
> should instead take the issue of how to more effectively
> triage/review/provide feedback/and manage expectations for
> contributions so contributors don't feel like their stuff will just
> sit forever.
> 
> Does that make sense and seem fair?
> 
> Thanks
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Peter Wicks (pwicks)  
>> wrote:
>> Just for clarification, "We really need to avoid the practice of setting fix 
>> versions without traction", would mean don't set a version number until 
>> after we've submitted a PR? Until after the PR has been closed? Other?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  Peter
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM
>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>> Subject: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?
>> 
>> team,
>> 
>> On the users lists we had an ask of when we are planning to cut a
>> 1.2.0 release.  And someone else asked me recently off-list.
>> 
>> There are 45 open JIRAs tagged to it as of now.
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20DESC
>> 
>> I'd be favorable to going through and seeing if we can start the motions for 
>> a 1.2.0 release and which are ones we can wait for and which we should have 
>> in 1.2.0 for sure.
>> 
>> Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off on a 1.2.0 release?
>> 
>> A non trivial number of the JIRAs are for things which have or do not have 
>> PRs but have no review traction.  We really need to avoid the practice of 
>> setting fix versions without traction on this as otherwise it holds up the 
>> releases.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Joe

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Gresock]

Slightly off topic, but your statement "we need reviews/feedback as much as
we need contributions" made me think that the project could somehow benefit
from the concept of Kanban Work In Progress limits.  Not sure how you'd
implement this with an open source project, but just a thought.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Andy LoPresto 
wrote:

> As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically setting fix
> versions and then not meeting them, I second Joe's point about it holding
> up releases. Better to get the PR out, reviewed, and merged *before*
> setting the fix version in my opinion.
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> > On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt  wrote:
> >
> > Peter,
> >
> > This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open.  But the
> > way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless they
> > really should block a release without resolution or if due to some
> > roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that is
> > tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many things which pop up
> > throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided.  That is to
> > say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the act of
> > merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed.
> >
> > From the release management point of view:
> > This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really
> > difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a release as
> > pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear as
> > though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly
> > releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone
> > would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten the PR
> > and/or review traction necessary.
> >
> > From the contributor point of view:
> > If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to end
> > up in a release.  But being an RTC community we need and want peer
> > review before the code is submitted.  Some contributions are frankly
> > hard to get peer review on or simply take time for someone to
> > volunteer to do.  PRs which are difficult to test, lack testing, are
> > related to systems or environments which are not easily replicated,
> > etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review for.  Also, the
> > community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes the hygiene of a given
> > PR isn't great.  So our 'patch available' and 'open PR' count ticks
> > up.  We need reviews/feedback as much as we need contributions so it
> > is important for folks that want those contributions in to build
> > meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions.  This helps
> > build a network of contributors/reviewers and improves the timeliness
> > of reviews.  Long story short here is that because at times PRs can
> > sit too long sometimes people put a fix version on the JIRA so it acts
> > as a sort of 'gating function' on the release.  This I am saying is
> > the practice that should not occur (given the thoughts above).  We
> > should instead take the issue of how to more effectively
> > triage/review/provide feedback/and manage expectations for
> > contributions so contributors don't feel like their stuff will just
> > sit forever.
> >
> > Does that make sense and seem fair?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Peter Wicks (pwicks) <
> pwi...@micron.com> wrote:
> >> Just for clarification, "We really need to avoid the practice of
> setting fix versions without traction", would mean don't set a version
> number until after we've submitted a PR? Until after the PR has been
> closed? Other?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>  Peter
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM
> >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
> >> Subject: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?
> >>
> >> team,
> >>
> >> On the users lists we had an ask of when we are planning to cut a
> >> 1.2.0 release.  And someone else asked me recently off-list.
> >>
> >> There are 45 open JIRAs tagged to it as of now.
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%
> 3D%20NIFI%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.2.0%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%
> 20Unresolved%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20key%20DESC
> >>
> >> I'd be favorable to going through and seeing if we can start the
> motions for a 1.2.0 release and which are ones we can wait for and which we
> should have in 1.2.0 for sure.
> >>
> >> Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off on a 1.2.0 release?
> >>
> >> A non trivial number of the JIRAs are for things which have or do not
> have PRs but have no review traction.  We really need to avoid the practice
> of setting fix versions without traction on this as otherwise it holds up
> the releases.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
>



-- 
I know what it is to 

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Mark Payne]

Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set a Fix Version on JIRA's, that some 
PR's will be lost
or stalled. I rarely go to github and start looking through the PRs. Instead, I 
go to JIRA and look
at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the next release. Then I'll go and 
review JIRA's that are
in a state of "Patch Available." Even then I often come across many PR's that 
have already been
reviewed by one or more other committers and are awaiting updates.

So I propose that we address this slightly differently. I believe that we 
should assign a Fix Version to
a JIRA whenever a PR is submitted. Then, whenever a committer reviews a PR, 
he/she should be
responsible for updating the JIRA. If the PR is merged then the JIRA should be 
resolved as Fixed.
But if the PR is not merged because some changes are needed, the reviewer 
should then go back to
the JIRA and click 'Cancel Patch'. We are typically very good about resolving 
as fixed once a PR is
merged, but we don't typically cancel the patch otherwise.

If we followed this workflow, then a Release Manager (or anyone else) can 
easily see which tickets
need to be reviewed before a release happens and which ones can be pushed out 
because they
are not ready (even if a PR has been posted). It also makes it much easier for 
reviewers to quickly
know which tickets are awaiting review.

Thoughts?

-Mark


> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Andy LoPresto  wrote:
> 
> As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically setting fix versions 
> and then not meeting them, I second Joe's point about it holding up releases. 
> Better to get the PR out, reviewed, and merged *before* setting the fix 
> version in my opinion. 
> 
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> 
>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt  wrote:
>> 
>> Peter,
>> 
>> This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open.  But the
>> way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless they
>> really should block a release without resolution or if due to some
>> roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that is
>> tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many things which pop up
>> throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided.  That is to
>> say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the act of
>> merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed.
>> 
>> From the release management point of view:
>> This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really
>> difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a release as
>> pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear as
>> though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly
>> releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone
>> would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten the PR
>> and/or review traction necessary.
>> 
>> From the contributor point of view:
>> If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to end
>> up in a release.  But being an RTC community we need and want peer
>> review before the code is submitted.  Some contributions are frankly
>> hard to get peer review on or simply take time for someone to
>> volunteer to do.  PRs which are difficult to test, lack testing, are
>> related to systems or environments which are not easily replicated,
>> etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review for.  Also, the
>> community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes the hygiene of a given
>> PR isn't great.  So our 'patch available' and 'open PR' count ticks
>> up.  We need reviews/feedback as much as we need contributions so it
>> is important for folks that want those contributions in to build
>> meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions.  This helps
>> build a network of contributors/reviewers and improves the timeliness
>> of reviews.  Long story short here is that because at times PRs can
>> sit too long sometimes people put a fix version on the JIRA so it acts
>> as a sort of 'gating function' on the release.  This I am saying is
>> the practice that should not occur (given the thoughts above).  We
>> should instead take the issue of how to more effectively
>> triage/review/provide feedback/and manage expectations for
>> contributions so contributors don't feel like their stuff will just
>> sit forever.
>> 
>> Does that make sense and seem fair?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Peter Wicks (pwicks)  
>>> wrote:
>>> Just for clarification, "We really need to avoid the practice of setting 
>>> fix versions without traction", would mean don't set a version number until 
>>> after we've submitted a PR? Until after the PR has been closed? Other?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peter
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Joe Witt [mailto:joe.w...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:55 PM
>>> To: dev@nifi.apache.org
>>> Subje

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andy LoPresto]

Mark,

I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version at the time the 
PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the contributor is aware of 
this process). I think it’s better than waiting for the merge, as I proposed 
before.

I agree that the reviewer is responsible for keeping the Jira updated in line 
with their work. I don’t know if I am on the same page as you for “Cancel 
Patch” if the PR needs changes; sometimes these are minor fixes or just looking 
for clarification from the contributor, and I don’t think that warrants 
canceling the availability of the patch. If they are major architectural 
changes, then that makes more sense to me.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:
> 
> Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set a Fix Version on JIRA's, that 
> some PR's will be lost
> or stalled. I rarely go to github and start looking through the PRs. Instead, 
> I go to JIRA and look
> at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the next release. Then I'll go and 
> review JIRA's that are
> in a state of "Patch Available." Even then I often come across many PR's that 
> have already been
> reviewed by one or more other committers and are awaiting updates.
> 
> So I propose that we address this slightly differently. I believe that we 
> should assign a Fix Version to
> a JIRA whenever a PR is submitted. Then, whenever a committer reviews a PR, 
> he/she should be
> responsible for updating the JIRA. If the PR is merged then the JIRA should 
> be resolved as Fixed.
> But if the PR is not merged because some changes are needed, the reviewer 
> should then go back to
> the JIRA and click 'Cancel Patch'. We are typically very good about resolving 
> as fixed once a PR is
> merged, but we don't typically cancel the patch otherwise.
> 
> If we followed this workflow, then a Release Manager (or anyone else) can 
> easily see which tickets
> need to be reviewed before a release happens and which ones can be pushed out 
> because they
> are not ready (even if a PR has been posted). It also makes it much easier 
> for reviewers to quickly
> know which tickets are awaiting review.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -Mark
> 
> 
>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Andy LoPresto  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically setting fix versions 
>> and then not meeting them, I second Joe's point about it holding up 
>> releases. Better to get the PR out, reviewed, and merged *before* setting 
>> the fix version in my opinion.
>> 
>> Andy LoPresto
>> alopre...@apache.org
>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Peter,
>>> 
>>> This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open.  But the
>>> way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless they
>>> really should block a release without resolution or if due to some
>>> roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that is
>>> tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many things which pop up
>>> throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided.  That is to
>>> say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the act of
>>> merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed.
>>> 
>>> From the release management point of view:
>>> This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really
>>> difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a release as
>>> pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear as
>>> though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly
>>> releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone
>>> would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten the PR
>>> and/or review traction necessary.
>>> 
>>> From the contributor point of view:
>>> If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to end
>>> up in a release.  But being an RTC community we need and want peer
>>> review before the code is submitted.  Some contributions are frankly
>>> hard to get peer review on or simply take time for someone to
>>> volunteer to do.  PRs which are difficult to test, lack testing, are
>>> related to systems or environments which are not easily replicated,
>>> etc.. are inherently harder to get peer review for.  Also, the
>>> community has grown quite rapidly and sometimes the hygiene of a given
>>> PR isn't great.  So our 'patch available' and 'open PR' count ticks
>>> up.  We need reviews/feedback as much as we need contributions so it
>>> is important for folks that want those contributions in to build
>>> meritocracy as well in reviewing others contributions.  This helps
>>> build a network of contributors/reviewers and improves the timeliness
>>> of reviews.  Long story short here is that because at times PRs can
>>> sit too lo

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Mark Payne]

Andy,

If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to leave 
the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch is not 
ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if minor 
fixes are needed, then I believe
it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are made 
and the PR updated, then the
PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to "Patch 
Available" again.

I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" 
or "In Review." If it is awaiting
changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should Cancel Patch.

Do you or others have differing views on the meaning of "Patch Available"?

Thanks
-Mark


On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto 
mailto:alopre...@apache.org>> wrote:

Mark,

I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version at the time the 
PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the contributor is aware of 
this process). I think it’s better than waiting for the merge, as I proposed 
before.

I agree that the reviewer is responsible for keeping the Jira updated in line 
with their work. I don’t know if I am on the same page as you for “Cancel 
Patch” if the PR needs changes; sometimes these are minor fixes or just looking 
for clarification from the contributor, and I don’t think that warrants 
canceling the availability of the patch. If they are major architectural 
changes, then that makes more sense to me.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mark Payne 
mailto:marka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set a Fix Version on JIRA's, that some 
PR's will be lost
or stalled. I rarely go to github and start looking through the PRs. Instead, I 
go to JIRA and look
at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the next release. Then I'll go and 
review JIRA's that are
in a state of "Patch Available." Even then I often come across many PR's that 
have already been
reviewed by one or more other committers and are awaiting updates.

So I propose that we address this slightly differently. I believe that we 
should assign a Fix Version to
a JIRA whenever a PR is submitted. Then, whenever a committer reviews a PR, 
he/she should be
responsible for updating the JIRA. If the PR is merged then the JIRA should be 
resolved as Fixed.
But if the PR is not merged because some changes are needed, the reviewer 
should then go back to
the JIRA and click 'Cancel Patch'. We are typically very good about resolving 
as fixed once a PR is
merged, but we don't typically cancel the patch otherwise.

If we followed this workflow, then a Release Manager (or anyone else) can 
easily see which tickets
need to be reviewed before a release happens and which ones can be pushed out 
because they
are not ready (even if a PR has been posted). It also makes it much easier for 
reviewers to quickly
know which tickets are awaiting review.

Thoughts?

-Mark


On Feb 23, 2017, at 3:37 AM, Andy LoPresto 
mailto:alopresto.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote:

As someone who has surely been guilty of optimistically setting fix versions 
and then not meeting them, I second Joe's point about it holding up releases. 
Better to get the PR out, reviewed, and merged *before* setting the fix version 
in my opinion.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Feb 22, 2017, at 19:39, Joe Witt  wrote:

Peter,

This is just my preference so discussion is certainly open.  But the
way I see it we should not set the fix version on JIRAs unless they
really should block a release without resolution or if due to some
roadmap/planning/discussion it is a new feature/improvement that is
tied to a release.  Otherwise, for the many things which pop up
throughout a given release cycle they should be avoided.  That is to
say the majority of the time we'd avoid fix versions until the act of
merging a contribution which also means it has been reviewed.

From the release management point of view:
This approach helps greatly as until now it is has been really
difficult and time consuming to pull together/close down a release as
pretty much anyone can set these fix versions and make it appear as
though the release is not ready when in reality it is perfectly
releasable as-is but might miss out on some contribs that someone
would like to see in the release but has as of yet not gotten the PR
and/or review traction necessary.

From the contributor point of view:
If someone makes a contribution they obviously want that code to end
up in a release.  But being an RTC community we nee

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andy LoPresto]

Mark,

Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it explains 
why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly different 
personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to mean “the person 
responsible for this Jira has contributed code they feel solves the issue.” A 
review will (hopefully) determine if that assertion is correct and complete. I 
think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means 
"Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” but I see “In Review” as a potentially 
iterative process — it could be on the second pass of the contributor 
responding to comments, but it’s still “In Review” in my eyes. I don’t know 
that the granularity of Jira supports the specific workflow states of “been 
reviewed once but not complete/accepted yet”.

What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to “Open”, I don’t 
see the value because that obfuscates the difference between a Jira that hasn’t 
even been touched and one that has 90% of the code done. I agree we should make 
the RM’s job easier, but I also think it doesn’t help the visibility for 
reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when there is the potential for that 
patch to be ready for merge in a very short amount of time.

I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on shared 
definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re talking about 
it.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

> On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:
> 
> Andy,
> 
> If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to leave 
> the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
> as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch is 
> not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
> Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if minor 
> fixes are needed, then I believe
> it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are made 
> and the PR updated, then the
> PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to "Patch 
> Available" again.
> 
> I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" 
> or "In Review." If it is awaiting
> changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should Cancel Patch.
> 
> Do you or others have differing views on the meaning of "Patch Available"?
> 
> Thanks
> -Mark
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto 
> mailto:alopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version at the time 
> the PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the contributor is 
> aware of this process). I think it’s better than waiting for the merge, as I 
> proposed before.
> 
> I agree that the reviewer is responsible for keeping the Jira updated in line 
> with their work. I don’t know if I am on the same page as you for “Cancel 
> Patch” if the PR needs changes; sometimes these are minor fixes or just 
> looking for clarification from the contributor, and I don’t think that 
> warrants canceling the availability of the patch. If they are major 
> architectural changes, then that makes more sense to me.
> 
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> 
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mark Payne 
> mailto:marka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set a Fix Version on JIRA's, that 
> some PR's will be lost
> or stalled. I rarely go to github and start looking through the PRs. Instead, 
> I go to JIRA and look
> at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the next release. Then I'll go and 
> review JIRA's that are
> in a state of "Patch Available." Even then I often come across many PR's that 
> have already been
> reviewed by one or more other committers and are awaiting updates.
> 
> So I propose that we address this slightly differently. I believe that we 
> should assign a Fix Version to
> a JIRA whenever a PR is submitted. Then, whenever a committer reviews a PR, 
> he/she should be
> responsible for updating the JIRA. If the PR is merged then the JIRA should 
> be resolved as Fixed.
> But if the PR is not merged because some changes are needed, the reviewer 
> should then go back to
> the JIRA and click 'Cancel Patch'. We are typically very good about resolving 
> as fixed once a PR is
> merged, but we don't typically cancel the patch otherwise.
> 
> If we followed this workflow, then a Release Manager (or anyone else) can 
> easily see which tickets
> need to be reviewed before a release happens and which ones can be pushed out 
> because they
> are not ready (even if a PR has been posted). It also makes it much easier 
> for reviewers to quickly
> know which tickets are awaiting review.
> 
> 

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Mark Payne]

Andy,

Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think it's 
important to keep going.

I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch available to 
see which state it returned to.
It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal. Though we 
could certainly have a process
by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the patch.

I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of "In Review." 
Let's say that you submit a
patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work - let's say 
there's an issue with licensing
not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no longer 
consider the patch that you provided
to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you will need to 
submit a new patch. I guess
that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.




On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto 
mailto:alopre...@apache.org>> wrote:

Mark,

Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it explains 
why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly different 
personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to mean “the person 
responsible for this Jira has contributed code they feel solves the issue.” A 
review will (hopefully) determine if that assertion is correct and complete. I 
think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means 
"Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” but I see “In Review” as a potentially 
iterative process — it could be on the second pass of the contributor 
responding to comments, but it’s still “In Review” in my eyes. I don’t know 
that the granularity of Jira supports the specific workflow states of “been 
reviewed once but not complete/accepted yet”.

What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to “Open”, I don’t 
see the value because that obfuscates the difference between a Jira that hasn’t 
even been touched and one that has 90% of the code done. I agree we should make 
the RM’s job easier, but I also think it doesn’t help the visibility for 
reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when there is the potential for that 
patch to be ready for merge in a very short amount of time.

I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on shared 
definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re talking about 
it.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne 
mailto:marka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Andy,

If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to leave 
the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch is not 
ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if minor 
fixes are needed, then I believe
it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are made 
and the PR updated, then the
PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to "Patch 
Available" again.

I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" 
or "In Review." If it is awaiting
changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should Cancel Patch.

Do you or others have differing views on the meaning of "Patch Available"?

Thanks
-Mark


On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto 
mailto:alopre...@apache.org>>
 wrote:

Mark,

I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version at the time the 
PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the contributor is aware of 
this process). I think it’s better than waiting for the merge, as I proposed 
before.

I agree that the reviewer is responsible for keeping the Jira updated in line 
with their work. I don’t know if I am on the same page as you for “Cancel 
Patch” if the PR needs changes; sometimes these are minor fixes or just looking 
for clarification from the contributor, and I don’t think that warrants 
canceling the availability of the patch. If they are major architectural 
changes, then that makes more sense to me.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Feb 24, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Mark Payne 
mailto:marka...@hotmail.com>>
 wrote:

Personally, I am afraid that if we don't set a Fix Version on JIRA's, that some 
PR's will be lost
or stalled. I rarely go to github and start looking through the PRs. Instead, I 
go to JIRA and look
at what is assigned with a fixVersion of the next release. Then I'll go and 
review JIRA's that are
in a state of "P

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Gresock]

This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the original
intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off
on a 1.2.0 release?"

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:

> Andy,
>
> Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think it's
> important to keep going.
>
> I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
> available to see which state it returned to.
> It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal. Though
> we could certainly have a process
> by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the patch.
>
> I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of "In
> Review." Let's say that you submit a
> patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work -
> let's say there's an issue with licensing
> not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no longer
> consider the patch that you provided
> to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you will
> need to submit a new patch. I guess
> that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto  lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it
> explains why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly
> different personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to mean
> “the person responsible for this Jira has contributed code they feel solves
> the issue.” A review will (hopefully) determine if that assertion is
> correct and complete. I think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint is simply
> that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” but I see
> “In Review” as a potentially iterative process — it could be on the second
> pass of the contributor responding to comments, but it’s still “In Review”
> in my eyes. I don’t know that the granularity of Jira supports the specific
> workflow states of “been reviewed once but not complete/accepted yet”.
>
> What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to “Open”, I
> don’t see the value because that obfuscates the difference between a Jira
> that hasn’t even been touched and one that has 90% of the code done. I
> agree we should make the RM’s job easier, but I also think it doesn’t help
> the visibility for reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when there is
> the potential for that patch to be ready for merge in a very short amount
> of time.
>
> I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on shared
> definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re talking
> about it.
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne  arka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Andy,
>
> If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to
> leave the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
> as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch is
> not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
> Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if
> minor fixes are needed, then I believe
> it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are
> made and the PR updated, then the
> PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to "Patch
> Available" again.
>
> I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting
> Review" or "In Review." If it is awaiting
> changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should Cancel
> Patch.
>
> Do you or others have differing views on the meaning of "Patch Available"?
>
> Thanks
> -Mark
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto  lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version at the time
> the PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the contributor is
> aware of this process). I think it’s better than waiting for the merge, as
> I proposed before.
>
> I agree that the reviewer is responsible for keeping the Jira updated in
> line with their work. I don’t know if I am on the same page as you for
> “Cancel Patch” if the PR needs changes; sometimes these are minor fixes or
> just looking for clarification from the contributor, and I don’t think that
> warrants canceling the availability of the patch. If they are major
> architectural changes, then that makes more sense to me.
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org pre...@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 12:08 PM, Mark Payne  arka...@hotmail.com>

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
release.

In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
plugin which would be soon.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
[2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock  wrote:
> This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the original
> intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold off
> on a 1.2.0 release?"
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:
>
>> Andy,
>>
>> Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think it's
>> important to keep going.
>>
>> I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
>> available to see which state it returned to.
>> It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal. Though
>> we could certainly have a process
>> by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the patch.
>>
>> I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of "In
>> Review." Let's say that you submit a
>> patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work -
>> let's say there's an issue with licensing
>> not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no longer
>> consider the patch that you provided
>> to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you will
>> need to submit a new patch. I guess
>> that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto > lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it
>> explains why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly
>> different personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to mean
>> “the person responsible for this Jira has contributed code they feel solves
>> the issue.” A review will (hopefully) determine if that assertion is
>> correct and complete. I think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint is simply
>> that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” but I see
>> “In Review” as a potentially iterative process — it could be on the second
>> pass of the contributor responding to comments, but it’s still “In Review”
>> in my eyes. I don’t know that the granularity of Jira supports the specific
>> workflow states of “been reviewed once but not complete/accepted yet”.
>>
>> What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to “Open”, I
>> don’t see the value because that obfuscates the difference between a Jira
>> that hasn’t even been touched and one that has 90% of the code done. I
>> agree we should make the RM’s job easier, but I also think it doesn’t help
>> the visibility for reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when there is
>> the potential for that patch to be ready for merge in a very short amount
>> of time.
>>
>> I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on shared
>> definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re talking
>> about it.
>>
>> Andy LoPresto
>> alopre...@apache.org
>> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne > arka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to
>> leave the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
>> as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch is
>> not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
>> Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if
>> minor fixes are needed, then I believe
>> it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are
>> made and the PR updated, then the
>> PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to "Patch
>> Available" again.
>>
>> I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting
>> Review" or "In Review." If it is awaiting
>> changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should Cancel
>> Patch.
>>
>> Do you or others have differing views on the meaning of "Patch Available"?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Mark
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Andy LoPresto > lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> I like your point about updating the Jira with the Fix Version at the time
>> the PR review begins (or when the PR is submitted, if the contributor is
>> aware of this process). I think it’s better

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[James Wing]

Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard work.
Oh, and uh... thanks! :)

So the alternatives are:
a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning

Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component versioning work
in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is the
question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?


Thanks,

James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
> very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
> release.
>
> In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
> plugin which would be soon.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock  wrote:
> > This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the original
> > intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold
> off
> > on a 1.2.0 release?"
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:
> >
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think
> it's
> >> important to keep going.
> >>
> >> I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
> >> available to see which state it returned to.
> >> It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal. Though
> >> we could certainly have a process
> >> by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the
> patch.
> >>
> >> I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of "In
> >> Review." Let's say that you submit a
> >> patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work -
> >> let's say there's an issue with licensing
> >> not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no
> longer
> >> consider the patch that you provided
> >> to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you will
> >> need to submit a new patch. I guess
> >> that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto   >> lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Mark,
> >>
> >> Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it
> >> explains why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly
> >> different personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to
> mean
> >> “the person responsible for this Jira has contributed code they feel
> solves
> >> the issue.” A review will (hopefully) determine if that assertion is
> >> correct and complete. I think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint is
> simply
> >> that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” but I
> see
> >> “In Review” as a potentially iterative process — it could be on the
> second
> >> pass of the contributor responding to comments, but it’s still “In
> Review”
> >> in my eyes. I don’t know that the granularity of Jira supports the
> specific
> >> workflow states of “been reviewed once but not complete/accepted yet”.
> >>
> >> What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to “Open”,
> I
> >> don’t see the value because that obfuscates the difference between a
> Jira
> >> that hasn’t even been touched and one that has 90% of the code done. I
> >> agree we should make the RM’s job easier, but I also think it doesn’t
> help
> >> the visibility for reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when there
> is
> >> the potential for that patch to be ready for merge in a very short
> amount
> >> of time.
> >>
> >> I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on shared
> >> definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re
> talking
> >> about it.
> >>
> >> Andy LoPresto
> >> alopre...@apache.org
> >> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> >> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> >>
> >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne  >> arka...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to
> >> leave the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
> >> as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch
> is
> >> not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
> >> Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if
> >> minor fixes are needed, then I believe
> >> it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are
> >> made and the PR updated, then the
> >

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Russell Bateman]

+1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!

On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:

Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard work.
Oh, and uh... thanks! :)

So the alternatives are:
a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning

Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component versioning work
in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is the
question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?


Thanks,

James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:


Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
release.

In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
plugin which would be soon.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
[2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock  wrote:

This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the original
intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold

off

on a 1.2.0 release?"

On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:


Andy,

Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think

it's

important to keep going.

I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
available to see which state it returned to.
It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal. Though
we could certainly have a process
by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the

patch.

I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of "In
Review." Let's say that you submit a
patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work -
let's say there's an issue with licensing
not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no

longer

consider the patch that you provided
to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you will
need to submit a new patch. I guess
that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.




On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto 

lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:

Mark,

Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it
explains why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly
different personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to

mean

“the person responsible for this Jira has contributed code they feel

solves

the issue.” A review will (hopefully) determine if that assertion is
correct and complete. I think we kind of agree on "my viewpoint is

simply

that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting Review" or "In Review.”” but I

see

“In Review” as a potentially iterative process — it could be on the

second

pass of the contributor responding to comments, but it’s still “In

Review”

in my eyes. I don’t know that the granularity of Jira supports the

specific

workflow states of “been reviewed once but not complete/accepted yet”.

What state does “Cancel Patch” result in? If it just reverts to “Open”,

I

don’t see the value because that obfuscates the difference between a

Jira

that hasn’t even been touched and one that has 90% of the code done. I
agree we should make the RM’s job easier, but I also think it doesn’t

help

the visibility for reviewers to see a Jira marked as “open” when there

is

the potential for that patch to be ready for merge in a very short

amount

of time.

I think these conversations will ultimately help us narrow in on shared
definitions that make sense to everyone though, so I’m glad we’re

talking

about it.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

On Feb 24, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Mark Payne > wrote:

Andy,

If the reviewer is looking for clarification, then it may make sense to
leave the JIRA in "Patch Available" state
as you suggest. If there are minor fixes needed, though, then the patch

is

not ready. In JIRA, the verbiage for
Cancel Patch says "The patch is not yet ready to be committed." So if
minor fixes are needed, then I believe
it is appropriate to Cancel Patch. Once those changes (minor or not) are
made and the PR updated, then the
PR needs review again and the status should be changed back to "Patch
Available" again.

I guess my viewpoint is simply that "Patch Available" means "Awaiting
Review" or "In Review." If it is awaiting
changes of some kind and won't be merged as-is, then we should Cancel
Patch.

Do you or others have differing views on the

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

James,

No problem :)

I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...

Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
what to do with the 39 JIRAs.

As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...

The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for
NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make
use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older
NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run
two versions of that NAR at the same time.

Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if
anyone is interested.

Thanks,

Bryan


On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman  wrote:
> +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
>
>
> On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
>>
>> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard work.
>> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
>>
>> So the alternatives are:
>> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
>> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
>>
>> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component versioning
>> work
>> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is the
>> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>
>>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
>>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
>>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
>>> very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
>>> release.
>>>
>>> In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
>>> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
>>> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
>>> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
>>> plugin which would be soon.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
>>> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock  wrote:

 This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the
 original
 intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold
>>>
>>> off

 on a 1.2.0 release?"

 On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne  wrote:

> Andy,
>
> Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think
>>>
>>> it's
>
> important to keep going.
>
> I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
> available to see which state it returned to.
> It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal.
> Though
> we could certainly have a process
> by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the
>>>
>>> patch.
>
> I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of "In
> Review." Let's say that you submit a
> patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work -
> let's say there's an issue with licensing
> not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no
>>>
>>> longer
>
> consider the patch that you provided
> to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you will
> need to submit a new patch. I guess
> that I view a patch as being an immutable entity.
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Andy LoPresto >>
>>> 
> lopre...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Your understanding of “Patch Available” certainly makes sense and it
> explains why you approach the process the way you do. I have a slightly
> different personal understanding of “Patch Available” — I read it to
>>>
>>> mean
>
> “the person

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[James Wing]

+1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone feature.
And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.

Thanks,

James

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

> James,
>
> No problem :)
>
> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>
> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
>
> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
>
> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for
> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make
> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older
> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run
> two versions of that NAR at the same time.
>
> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if
> anyone is interested.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bryan
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman 
> wrote:
> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
> >
> >
> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
> >>
> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard work.
> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
> >>
> >> So the alternatives are:
> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
> >>
> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component versioning
> >> work
> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is the
> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
> >>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
> >>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
> >>> very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
> >>> release.
> >>>
> >>> In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
> >>> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
> >>> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
> >>> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
> >>> plugin which would be soon.
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
> >>> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock 
> wrote:
> 
>  This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the
>  original
>  intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold
> >>>
> >>> off
> 
>  on a 1.2.0 release?"
> 
>  On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne 
> wrote:
> 
> > Andy,
> >
> > Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think
> >>>
> >>> it's
> >
> > important to keep going.
> >
> > I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
> > available to see which state it returned to.
> > It did in fact go back to Open. Which I agree is less than ideal.
> > Though
> > we could certainly have a process
> > by which we change the status to "In Progress" after canceling the
> >>>
> >>> patch.
> >
> > I guess where my viewpoint differs from yours is in the meaning of
> "In
> > Review." Let's say that you submit a
> > patch for a JIRA. I then review it and find that it needs some work -
> > let's say there's an issue with licensing
> > not being properly accounted for, for instance. At that point, I no
> >>>
> >>> longer
> >
> > consider the patch that you provided
> > to be "In Review." I believe the patch should be canceled, and you
> will
> > need to submit a new patch. I guess
> > that I view a p

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Just a quick update on this discussion...

On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
versioning work [1].

I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].

If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.

-Bryan

[1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
[2] 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing  wrote:
> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone feature.
> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
>> James,
>>
>> No problem :)
>>
>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>>
>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
>>
>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
>>
>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
>> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for
>> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
>> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make
>> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older
>> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
>> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
>> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run
>> two versions of that NAR at the same time.
>>
>> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if
>> anyone is interested.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman 
>> wrote:
>> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
>> >
>> >
>> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard work.
>> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
>> >>
>> >> So the alternatives are:
>> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
>> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
>> >>
>> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component versioning
>> >> work
>> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is the
>> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> James
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
>> >>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
>> >>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
>> >>> very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
>> >>> release.
>> >>>
>> >>> In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
>> >>> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
>> >>> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
>> >>> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
>> >>> plugin which would be soon.
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
>> >>> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>  This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the
>>  original
>>  intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold
>> >>>
>> >>> off
>> 
>>  on a 1.2.0 release?"
>> 
>>  On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Mark Payne 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Andy,
>> >
>> > Sorry, i haven't responded to this thread in over a week, but I think
>> >>>
>> >>> it's
>> >
>> > important to keep going.
>> >
>> > I just clicked "Cancel Patch" on one of my ticket that has a patch
>> > available to see which state it returned to.
>> > It did in fa

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Bryan

How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
course is out.

We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.

Thanks
JOe

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> Just a quick update on this discussion...
>
> On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
> versioning work [1].
>
> I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
> plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
>
> If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
> for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
>
> -Bryan
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
> [2] 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing  wrote:
>> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone feature.
>> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>
>>> James,
>>>
>>> No problem :)
>>>
>>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>>>
>>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
>>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
>>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
>>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
>>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
>>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
>>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
>>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
>>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
>>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
>>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
>>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
>>>
>>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
>>>
>>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
>>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
>>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
>>> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for
>>> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
>>> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make
>>> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older
>>> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
>>> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
>>> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run
>>> two versions of that NAR at the same time.
>>>
>>> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if
>>> anyone is interested.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman 
>>> wrote:
>>> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard work.
>>> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
>>> >>
>>> >> So the alternatives are:
>>> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
>>> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
>>> >>
>>> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component versioning
>>> >> work
>>> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is the
>>> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> James
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
>>> >>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
>>> >>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality is
>>> >>> very close to being done and I think we should get this into the 1.2.0
>>> >>> release.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In order to fully leverage the versioned components we will need to
>>> >>> release an updated Maven NAR plugin, so we would do that first and
>>> >>> then release 1.2.0 using the new plugin. If everyone is on-board with
>>> >>> this plan then I can advise when we are ready to release the new
>>> >>> plugin which would be soon.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3380
>>> >>> [2] https://github.com/bbende/nifi/tree/NIFI-3380
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Joe Gresock 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  This is good discussion that should continue, but what about the
>>>  original
>>>  intent of Joe's post?  "Is there any reason folks can think of to hold
>>> >>>
>>> >>> off
>>> 
>>>  on a 

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Joe,

As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning) should
address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.

Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that tomorrow.
That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.

Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
remaining tickets.

-Bryan

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:

> Bryan
>
> How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
> course is out.
>
> We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
> make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
>
> Thanks
> JOe
>
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> > Just a quick update on this discussion...
> >
> > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
> > versioning work [1].
> >
> > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
> > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
> >
> > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
> > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
> >
> > -Bryan
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
> > [2]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing  wrote:
> >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
> feature.
> >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> >>
> >>> James,
> >>>
> >>> No problem :)
> >>>
> >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
> >>>
> >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
> >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
> >>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
> >>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
> >>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
> >>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
> >>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
> >>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
> >>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
> >>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
> >>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
> >>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
> >>>
> >>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
> >>>
> >>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
> >>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
> >>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
> >>> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for
> >>> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
> >>> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make
> >>> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older
> >>> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
> >>> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
> >>> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run
> >>> two versions of that NAR at the same time.
> >>>
> >>> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if
> >>> anyone is interested.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Bryan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman  >
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard
> work.
> >>> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So the alternatives are:
> >>> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
> >>> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component
> versioning
> >>> >> work
> >>> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is
> the
> >>> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> James
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende 
> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Just wanted to mention that one of the JIRAs tagged for 1.2.0 is
> >>> >>> NIFI-3380 "support multiple versions of the same component" [1] and
> >>> >>> I've been working with Matt Gilman on this [2]. The functionality
> is

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> Joe,
>
> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning) should
> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
>
> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that tomorrow.
> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
>
> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
> remaining tickets.
>
> -Bryan
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:
>
>> Bryan
>>
>> How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
>> course is out.
>>
>> We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
>> make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
>>
>> Thanks
>> JOe
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> > Just a quick update on this discussion...
>> >
>> > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
>> > versioning work [1].
>> >
>> > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
>> > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
>> >
>> > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
>> > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
>> >
>> > -Bryan
>> >
>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
>> > [2]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing  wrote:
>> >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
>> feature.
>> >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> James
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> James,
>> >>>
>> >>> No problem :)
>> >>>
>> >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>> >>>
>> >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
>> >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
>> >>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
>> >>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
>> >>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
>> >>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
>> >>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
>> >>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
>> >>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
>> >>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
>> >>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
>> >>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
>> >>>
>> >>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
>> >>>
>> >>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
>> >>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
>> >>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
>> >>> removed, and the branch I have with the component versioning code for
>> >>> NiFi could also run against old NARs that don't have the new entries,
>> >>> you just see everything as being "unversioned" and can't actually make
>> >>> use of the new capabilities. We'll always have to be able to run older
>> >>> NARs because there are tons of custom NARs out there that have not
>> >>> been (and may never be) rebuilt with the newer version of the plugin,
>> >>> which is fine, they only need to be rebuilt if someone wants to run
>> >>> two versions of that NAR at the same time.
>> >>>
>> >>> Happy to elaborate more on any of the component versioning work if
>> >>> anyone is interested.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Bryan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Russell Bateman > >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>> > +1 for component versioning in NiFi 1.2!
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > On 03/08/2017 12:40 PM, James Wing wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Bryan, I'm 100% in favor of you and Matt Gilman doing all the hard
>> work.
>> >>> >> Oh, and uh... thanks! :)
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> So the alternatives are:
>> >>> >> a.) Release 1.2.0 sooner (?), but without component versioning
>> >>> >> b.) Delay 1.2.0 (?) to incorporate component versioning
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Will the NAR plugin alone commit us to all of the component
>> versioning
>> >>> >> work
>> >>> >> in 1.2, or will the new NAR format be backward-compatible?  Or is
>> the
>> >>> >> question more about the strategy for 1.2.0?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Thanks,
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> James
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Bryan Bende 
>> wr

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Team,

Status of JIRA cleanup toward an Apache NiFi 1.2.0 release candidate
which Mr Bende has so wonderfully volunteered to RM:

There are 20 open JIRAs as of now.

12 of 20 have PRs that appear ready/close to ready.

One pattern I noticed quite a bit on the 1.2.0 release is heavy usage
of 'squatter JIRAs' whereby someone makes a JIRA and with or without
any review traction and for non blocking issues sets the fix version.
This practice should be avoided.  The fix version should be reserved
for once there is a blocker item or there is something with a patch
contributed and review progress closing in on a merge.

One of them means we need to punt the Twitter processor most likely.
Don't believe there were new releases to resolve that licensing issue
by the third party dependency.  I'll take that on.
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3089

Two of them are build failure issues which means windows and linux
builds break (highly repeatable):
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3441
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3440

A couple need to either be moved out or addressed for implementation
or review but it isn't clear to me their status:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3155
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1280
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2656
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2886

Some are really important and being worked still:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3520

Thanks
Joe

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> Joe,
>>
>> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning) should
>> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
>>
>> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
>> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that tomorrow.
>> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
>>
>> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
>> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
>> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
>> remaining tickets.
>>
>> -Bryan
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:
>>
>>> Bryan
>>>
>>> How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
>>> course is out.
>>>
>>> We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
>>> make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> JOe
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>> > Just a quick update on this discussion...
>>> >
>>> > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
>>> > versioning work [1].
>>> >
>>> > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
>>> > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
>>> >
>>> > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
>>> > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
>>> >
>>> > -Bryan
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
>>> > [2]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing  wrote:
>>> >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
>>> feature.
>>> >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >>
>>> >> James
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> James,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> No problem :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
>>> >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
>>> >>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
>>> >>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
>>> >>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
>>> >>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
>>> >>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
>>> >>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
>>> >>> it be in 1.2, unless there was strong opinion to move on without it.
>>> >>> Even if we moved on without it, I believe there is still a bit of work
>>> >>> to do in that we still need a release manager and we need to decide
>>> >>> what to do with the 39 JIRAs.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As far as the new NAR plugin and how things will work...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The changes to the NAR plugin add additional information to the
>>> >>> MANIFEST file in the NAR. Technically existing NiFi would have no
>>> >>> problem reading the new MANIFEST file because no entries are being
>>> >>

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Team,

Another update on efforts to close-in on the NiFi 1.2.0 release.
We're below 20 JIRAs now and there has been good momentum.  A couple
items still need work but look really important and then there is
review traction/feedback cycles.  Will just keep monitoring it and
actively defending to close the loop on 1.2.0 until we're there.

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> Team,
>
> Status of JIRA cleanup toward an Apache NiFi 1.2.0 release candidate
> which Mr Bende has so wonderfully volunteered to RM:
>
> There are 20 open JIRAs as of now.
>
> 12 of 20 have PRs that appear ready/close to ready.
>
> One pattern I noticed quite a bit on the 1.2.0 release is heavy usage
> of 'squatter JIRAs' whereby someone makes a JIRA and with or without
> any review traction and for non blocking issues sets the fix version.
> This practice should be avoided.  The fix version should be reserved
> for once there is a blocker item or there is something with a patch
> contributed and review progress closing in on a merge.
>
> One of them means we need to punt the Twitter processor most likely.
> Don't believe there were new releases to resolve that licensing issue
> by the third party dependency.  I'll take that on.
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3089
>
> Two of them are build failure issues which means windows and linux
> builds break (highly repeatable):
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3441
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3440
>
> A couple need to either be moved out or addressed for implementation
> or review but it isn't clear to me their status:
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3155
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1280
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2656
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2886
>
> Some are really important and being worked still:
>   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3520
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>> Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>> Joe,
>>>
>>> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning) should
>>> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
>>>
>>> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
>>> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that tomorrow.
>>> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
>>>
>>> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
>>> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
>>> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
>>> remaining tickets.
>>>
>>> -Bryan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:
>>>
 Bryan

 How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
 course is out.

 We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
 make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.

 Thanks
 JOe

 On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
 > Just a quick update on this discussion...
 >
 > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
 > versioning work [1].
 >
 > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR Maven
 > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
 >
 > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
 > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
 >
 > -Bryan
 >
 > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
 > [2]
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%20project%20%3D%20NIFI
 >
 > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing  wrote:
 >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
 feature.
 >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
 >>
 >> Thanks,
 >>
 >> James
 >>
 >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
 >>
 >>> James,
 >>>
 >>> No problem :)
 >>>
 >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
 >>>
 >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the JIRAs
 >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be moved
 >>> to a future release, and which ones the community is actually working
 >>> on and close to being ready. Currently we have 39 unresolved JIRAs
 >>> that are tagged as 1.2, one of which is NIFI-3380, and I figured if
 >>> someone looked at the ticket it might look like no work had been done
 >>> and figure that it can just be moved to next release, so I just wanted
 >>> to mention that it is very close to being ready was still hoping for
 >>> it be in 1.2, unless t

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Tony Kurc]

Joe et. al,
I think this one is close too (mainly dotting i's and crossing t's on
license and notice)

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3586

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:

> Team,
>
> Another update on efforts to close-in on the NiFi 1.2.0 release.
> We're below 20 JIRAs now and there has been good momentum.  A couple
> items still need work but look really important and then there is
> review traction/feedback cycles.  Will just keep monitoring it and
> actively defending to close the loop on 1.2.0 until we're there.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > Status of JIRA cleanup toward an Apache NiFi 1.2.0 release candidate
> > which Mr Bende has so wonderfully volunteered to RM:
> >
> > There are 20 open JIRAs as of now.
> >
> > 12 of 20 have PRs that appear ready/close to ready.
> >
> > One pattern I noticed quite a bit on the 1.2.0 release is heavy usage
> > of 'squatter JIRAs' whereby someone makes a JIRA and with or without
> > any review traction and for non blocking issues sets the fix version.
> > This practice should be avoided.  The fix version should be reserved
> > for once there is a blocker item or there is something with a patch
> > contributed and review progress closing in on a merge.
> >
> > One of them means we need to punt the Twitter processor most likely.
> > Don't believe there were new releases to resolve that licensing issue
> > by the third party dependency.  I'll take that on.
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3089
> >
> > Two of them are build failure issues which means windows and linux
> > builds break (highly repeatable):
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3441
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3440
> >
> > A couple need to either be moved out or addressed for implementation
> > or review but it isn't clear to me their status:
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3155
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1280
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2656
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2886
> >
> > Some are really important and being worked still:
> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3520
> >
> > Thanks
> > Joe
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> >> Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> >>> Joe,
> >>>
> >>> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning)
> should
> >>> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
> >>>
> >>> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
> >>> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that
> tomorrow.
> >>> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
> >>>
> >>> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
> >>> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
> >>> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
> >>> remaining tickets.
> >>>
> >>> -Bryan
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:
> >>>
>  Bryan
> 
>  How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
>  course is out.
> 
>  We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
>  make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
> 
>  Thanks
>  JOe
> 
>  On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende 
> wrote:
>  > Just a quick update on this discussion...
>  >
>  > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
>  > versioning work [1].
>  >
>  > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR
> Maven
>  > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
>  >
>  > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
>  > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
>  >
>  > -Bryan
>  >
>  > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
>  > [2]
>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=
> fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%
> 20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>  >
>  > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing 
> wrote:
>  >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
>  feature.
>  >> And I agree it's probably not holding up the release.
>  >>
>  >> Thanks,
>  >>
>  >> James
>  >>
>  >> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Bryan Bende 
> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> James,
>  >>>
>  >>> No problem :)
>  >>>
>  >>> I was mostly just suggesting an overall strategy...
>  >>>
>  >>> Usually when we start closing in on a release we go through the
> JIRAs
>  >>> tagged for that release and try to figure out which ones can be
> moved
>  >>> to a future release, and w

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Team,

Couple of good news updates on the release front is we're in the teens
on number of tickets AND Joey Frazee figured out a way to clean up the
twitter/json.org Cat-X dependency issue so our twitter processor
stays!

Will keep working the march down to 0 tickets.  A lot of good stuff in
this release so this should be a fun one!

Thanks
Joe

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
> Joe et. al,
> I think this one is close too (mainly dotting i's and crossing t's on
> license and notice)
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3586
>
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>
>> Team,
>>
>> Another update on efforts to close-in on the NiFi 1.2.0 release.
>> We're below 20 JIRAs now and there has been good momentum.  A couple
>> items still need work but look really important and then there is
>> review traction/feedback cycles.  Will just keep monitoring it and
>> actively defending to close the loop on 1.2.0 until we're there.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>> > Team,
>> >
>> > Status of JIRA cleanup toward an Apache NiFi 1.2.0 release candidate
>> > which Mr Bende has so wonderfully volunteered to RM:
>> >
>> > There are 20 open JIRAs as of now.
>> >
>> > 12 of 20 have PRs that appear ready/close to ready.
>> >
>> > One pattern I noticed quite a bit on the 1.2.0 release is heavy usage
>> > of 'squatter JIRAs' whereby someone makes a JIRA and with or without
>> > any review traction and for non blocking issues sets the fix version.
>> > This practice should be avoided.  The fix version should be reserved
>> > for once there is a blocker item or there is something with a patch
>> > contributed and review progress closing in on a merge.
>> >
>> > One of them means we need to punt the Twitter processor most likely.
>> > Don't believe there were new releases to resolve that licensing issue
>> > by the third party dependency.  I'll take that on.
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3089
>> >
>> > Two of them are build failure issues which means windows and linux
>> > builds break (highly repeatable):
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3441
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3440
>> >
>> > A couple need to either be moved out or addressed for implementation
>> > or review but it isn't clear to me their status:
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3155
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1280
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2656
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2886
>> >
>> > Some are really important and being worked still:
>> >   https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3520
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Joe
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>> >> Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> >>> Joe,
>> >>>
>> >>> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning)
>> should
>> >>> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
>> >>> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that
>> tomorrow.
>> >>> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
>> >>> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
>> >>> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
>> >>> remaining tickets.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Bryan
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:
>> >>>
>>  Bryan
>> 
>>  How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
>>  course is out.
>> 
>>  We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
>>  make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
>> 
>>  Thanks
>>  JOe
>> 
>>  On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende 
>> wrote:
>>  > Just a quick update on this discussion...
>>  >
>>  > On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
>>  > versioning work [1].
>>  >
>>  > I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR
>> Maven
>>  > plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
>>  >
>>  > If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
>>  > for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
>>  >
>>  > -Bryan
>>  >
>>  > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
>>  > [2]
>>  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=
>> fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugin-1.2.0%20AND%
>> 20project%20%3D%20NIFI
>>  >
>>  > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 6:19 PM, James Wing 
>> wrote:
>>  >> +1 for component versioning in 1.2.0, it will be a solid capstone
>>  feature.
>>  >> And I agre

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[u...@moosheimer.com]

Twitter processor stays. Great news!
Thanks to Joey!

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards
Kay-Uwe Moosheimer

> Am 11.04.2017 um 21:20 schrieb Joe Witt :
> 
> Team,
> 
> Couple of good news updates on the release front is we're in the teens
> on number of tickets AND Joey Frazee figured out a way to clean up the
> twitter/json.org Cat-X dependency issue so our twitter processor
> stays!
> 
> Will keep working the march down to 0 tickets.  A lot of good stuff in
> this release so this should be a fun one!
> 
> Thanks
> Joe
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Tony Kurc  wrote:
>> Joe et. al,
>> I think this one is close too (mainly dotting i's and crossing t's on
>> license and notice)
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3586
>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Team,
>>> 
>>> Another update on efforts to close-in on the NiFi 1.2.0 release.
>>> We're below 20 JIRAs now and there has been good momentum.  A couple
>>> items still need work but look really important and then there is
>>> review traction/feedback cycles.  Will just keep monitoring it and
>>> actively defending to close the loop on 1.2.0 until we're there.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>> 
 On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
 Team,
 
 Status of JIRA cleanup toward an Apache NiFi 1.2.0 release candidate
 which Mr Bende has so wonderfully volunteered to RM:
 
 There are 20 open JIRAs as of now.
 
 12 of 20 have PRs that appear ready/close to ready.
 
 One pattern I noticed quite a bit on the 1.2.0 release is heavy usage
 of 'squatter JIRAs' whereby someone makes a JIRA and with or without
 any review traction and for non blocking issues sets the fix version.
 This practice should be avoided.  The fix version should be reserved
 for once there is a blocker item or there is something with a patch
 contributed and review progress closing in on a merge.
 
 One of them means we need to punt the Twitter processor most likely.
 Don't believe there were new releases to resolve that licensing issue
 by the third party dependency.  I'll take that on.
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3089
 
 Two of them are build failure issues which means windows and linux
 builds break (highly repeatable):
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3441
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3440
 
 A couple need to either be moved out or addressed for implementation
 or review but it isn't clear to me their status:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3155
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1280
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2656
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-2886
 
 Some are really important and being worked still:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3520
 
 Thanks
 Joe
 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> Sweet!  I'll take that deal all day.  Thanks Bryan!
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> Joe,
>> 
>> As of today I believe the PR for NIFI-3380 (component versioning)
>>> should
>> address all of the code review feedback and is in a good place.
>> 
>> Would like to run through a few more tests tomorrow, and baring any
>> additional feedback from reviewers, we could possibly merge that
>>> tomorrow.
>> That PR will also bump master to use the newly released NAR plugin.
>> 
>> Since I got a warm-up with NAR plugin, I don't mind taking on release
>> manager duties for 1.2, although I would still like help on the JIRA
>> whipping. I imagine there's still a bit of work to narrow down the
>> remaining tickets.
>> 
>> -Bryan
>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:35 PM Joe Witt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bryan
>>> 
>>> How are things looking for what you updated on?  The nar plugin of
>>> course is out.
>>> 
>>> We got another question on the user list for 1.2 so I just want to
>>> make sure we're closing in.  I'll start doing the JIRA whipping.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> JOe
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Bryan Bende 
>>> wrote:
 Just a quick update on this discussion...
 
 On Friday we were able to post an initial PR for the component
 versioning work [1].
 
 I believe we are ready to move forward with a release of the NAR
>>> Maven
 plugin, there are three tickets to be included in the release [2].
 
 If there are no objections, I can take on the release manager duties
 for the NAR plugin, and can begin to kick off the process tomorrow.
 
 -Bryan
 
 [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1585
 [2]
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3589?jql=
>>> fixVersion%20%3D%20nifi-nar-maven-plugi

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[roboh]

Hi,

is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet? 
We are running into an  NIFI-3389
   issue and would like to
know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available. 

Thanks,
Robert



--
View this message in context: 
http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Robert,

We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
right place to be watching to see it closing in.

Thanks
Joe

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>    issue and would like to
> know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Russell Bateman]

Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's 
become indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude 
and admiration!


Russ

On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:

Robert,

We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
right place to be watching to see it closing in.

Thanks
Joe

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:

Hi,

is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
We are running into an  NIFI-3389
   issue and would like to
know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.

Thanks,
Robert



--
View this message in context: 
http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
have traction in terms of review and discussion.

I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
close!

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman  wrote:
> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's become
> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
> admiration!
>
> Russ
>
>
> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
>> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
>> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
>> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
>> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
>>> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>>>    issue and would like
>>> to
>>> know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
>>> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
>
>

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

All,

Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!

Down to three outstanding JIRAs...

- NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
occurring, appears to be close
- NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
- NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
like it could be merged relatively soon

Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.

I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
work in progress):
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0

If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
mention it here and I can update the notes.

Thanks!

-Bryan


On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
> have traction in terms of review and discussion.
>
> I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
> anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
> close!
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman  
> wrote:
>> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's become
>> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
>> admiration!
>>
>> Russ
>>
>>
>> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert,
>>>
>>> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
>>> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
>>> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
>>> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
>>> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Joe
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:

 Hi,

 is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
 We are running into an  NIFI-3389
    issue and would like
 to
 know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.

 Thanks,
 Robert



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
 Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
 Nabble.com.
>>
>>

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Quick update...

I was looking through PRs and noticed that NIFI-3594 (Encrypted Prov
Repo) had already received a +1 and just needed an update to resolve
conflicts with master.  I spoke to Andy offline and he is planning to
resolve the conflicts shortly and we can include this in 1.2.0.

Also, NIFI-3726 (CompareFuzzyHash processor) appears to be very close
as well and has already had some review and updates made. Andy plans
to do a final review and hopefully merge this as well.

Thanks,

Bryan




On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> All,
>
> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>
> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>
> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
> occurring, appears to be close
> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
> like it could be merged relatively soon
>
> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>
> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
> work in progress):
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>
> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
> mention it here and I can update the notes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bryan
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
>> have traction in terms of review and discussion.
>>
>> I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
>> anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
>> close!
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman  
>> wrote:
>>> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's become
>>> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
>>> admiration!
>>>
>>> Russ
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:

 Robert,

 We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
 and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
 stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
 next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
 right place to be watching to see it closing in.

 Thanks
 Joe

 On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>    issue and would like
> to
> know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Scott Aslan]

Hey Bryan,

Please include the following in the release notes:


   - Core UI
  - Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
  - Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
  - Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
  - Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
  - Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
  - Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
   - User Experience Improvements
   - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
  too...and now you can!
  - We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
  will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
  - Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of Controller
  Services through an improved experience.
  - All actions available on the operate palette are now also available
  under the context menu too!

Thanks!

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

> All,
>
> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>
> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>
> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
> occurring, appears to be close
> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
> like it could be merged relatively soon
>
> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>
> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
> work in progress):
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>
> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
> mention it here and I can update the notes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bryan
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> > Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
> > have traction in terms of review and discussion.
> >
> > I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
> > anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
> > close!
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman 
> wrote:
> >> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
> become
> >> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
> >> admiration!
> >>
> >> Russ
> >>
> >>
> >> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Robert,
> >>>
> >>> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
> >>> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
> >>> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
> >>> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
> >>> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
> 
>  is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
>  We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>     issue and would
> like
>  to
>  know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Robert
> 
> 
> 
>  --
>  View this message in context:
>  http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/
> Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
>  Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
>  Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
>



-- 
*Scott Aslan = new WebDeveloper(*
*{"location": {"city": "Saint Cloud","state": "FL",
"zip": "34771"},"contact": {"email":
"scottyas...@gmail.com ","linkedin":
"http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottyaslan
"}});*

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Witt]

Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
versions of UI components though.

Thanks


On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan  wrote:
> Hey Bryan,
>
> Please include the following in the release notes:
>
>
>- Core UI
>   - Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>   - Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>   - Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
>   - Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
>   - Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
>   - Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
>- User Experience Improvements
>- Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
>   too...and now you can!
>   - We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
>   will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
>   - Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of Controller
>   Services through an improved experience.
>   - All actions available on the operate palette are now also available
>   under the context menu too!
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>>
>> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>>
>> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
>> occurring, appears to be close
>> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
>> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
>> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
>> like it could be merged relatively soon
>>
>> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>>
>> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
>> work in progress):
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
>> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>>
>> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
>> mention it here and I can update the notes.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Bryan
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> > Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
>> > have traction in terms of review and discussion.
>> >
>> > I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
>> > anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
>> > close!
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman 
>> wrote:
>> >> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
>> become
>> >> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
>> >> admiration!
>> >>
>> >> Russ
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Robert,
>> >>>
>> >>> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
>> >>> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
>> >>> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
>> >>> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
>> >>> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>> Joe
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
>> 
>>  Hi,
>> 
>>  is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
>>  We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>>     issue and would
>> like
>>  to
>>  know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
>> 
>>  Thanks,
>>  Robert
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  --
>>  View this message in context:
>>  http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/
>> Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
>>  Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
>>  Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Scott Aslan = new WebDeveloper(*
> *{"location": {"city": "Saint Cloud","state": "FL",
> "zip": "34771"},"contact": {"email":
> "scottyas...@gmail.com ","linkedin":
> "http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottyaslan
> "}});*

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andrew Lim]

I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc 
regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720


-Drew


> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> 
> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
> versions of UI components though.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan  wrote:
>> Hey Bryan,
>> 
>> Please include the following in the release notes:
>> 
>> 
>>   - Core UI
>>  - Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>>  - Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>>  - Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
>>  - Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
>>  - Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
>>  - Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
>>   - User Experience Improvements
>>   - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
>>  too...and now you can!
>>  - We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
>>  will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
>>  - Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of Controller
>>  Services through an improved experience.
>>  - All actions available on the operate palette are now also available
>>  under the context menu too!
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>>> 
>>> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>>> 
>>> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
>>> occurring, appears to be close
>>> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
>>> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
>>> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
>>> like it could be merged relatively soon
>>> 
>>> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>>> 
>>> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
>>> work in progress):
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
>>> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>>> 
>>> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
>>> mention it here and I can update the notes.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> -Bryan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
 Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
 have traction in terms of review and discussion.
 
 I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
 anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
 close!
 
 On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman 
>>> wrote:
> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
>>> become
> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
> admiration!
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
>> 
>> Robert,
>> 
>> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have PRs
>> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
>> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So perhaps
>> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
>> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Joe
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
>>> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>>>    issue and would
>>> like
>>> to
>>> know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/
>>> Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
>>> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
>>> Nabble.com.
> 
> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *Scott Aslan = new WebDeveloper(*
>> *{"location": {"city": "Saint Cloud","state": "FL",
>>"zip": "34771"},"contact": {"email":
>> "scottyas...@gmail.com ","linkedin":
>> "http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottyaslan
>> "}});*

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Aldrin Piri]

Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that integration
[1] and resolved the original issue.

We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At this
time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
configuring these builds.

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
wrote:

> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>
>
> -Drew
>
>
> > On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> >
> > Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
> > versions of UI components though.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
> wrote:
> >> Hey Bryan,
> >>
> >> Please include the following in the release notes:
> >>
> >>
> >>   - Core UI
> >>  - Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
> >>  - Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
> >>  - Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
> >>  - Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
> >>  - Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
> >>  - Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
> >>   - User Experience Improvements
> >>   - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
> >>  too...and now you can!
> >>  - We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
> >>  will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
> >>  - Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
> Controller
> >>  Services through an improved experience.
> >>  - All actions available on the operate palette are now also
> available
> >>  under the context menu too!
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> >>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
> >>>
> >>> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
> >>>
> >>> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
> >>> occurring, appears to be close
> >>> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
> >>> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
> >>> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
> >>> like it could be merged relatively soon
> >>>
> >>> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
> >>>
> >>> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
> >>> work in progress):
> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
> >>> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
> >>>
> >>> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
> >>> mention it here and I can update the notes.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> -Bryan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>  Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
>  have traction in terms of review and discussion.
> 
>  I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
>  anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
>  close!
> 
>  On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman <
> r...@windofkeltia.com>
> >>> wrote:
> > Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
> >>> become
> > indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
> > admiration!
> >
> > Russ
> >
> >
> > On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> >>
> >> Robert,
> >>
> >> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have
> PRs
> >> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
> >> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So
> perhaps
> >> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
> >> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> Joe
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
> >>> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
> >>>    issue and
> would
> >>> like
> >>> to
> >>> know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Robert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context:
> >>> http://apache-nifi-developer-list.39713.n7.nabble.com/
> >>> Closing-in-on-a-NiFi-1-2-0-release-tp14907p15532.html
> >>> Sent from the Apache NiFi Developer List mailing list archive at
> >>> Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> *Scott Aslan = new WebDeveloper(*
> >> *{"location": {"city": "Saint Cloud","state": "FL",
> >>"zip": "34771"},"c

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andrew Lim]

There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in the RC:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774

Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs submitted for 
them very soon.

-Drew


> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
> 
> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that integration
> [1] and resolved the original issue.
> 
> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At this
> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
> configuring these builds.
> 
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
> 
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
> wrote:
> 
>> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
>> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>> 
>> 
>> -Drew
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
>>> versions of UI components though.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
>> wrote:
 Hey Bryan,
 
 Please include the following in the release notes:
 
 
  - Core UI
 - Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
 - Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
 - Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
 - Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
 - Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
 - Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
  - User Experience Improvements
  - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
 too...and now you can!
 - We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
 will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
 - Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
>> Controller
 Services through an improved experience.
 - All actions available on the operate palette are now also
>> available
 under the context menu too!
 
 Thanks!
 
 On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
 
> All,
> 
> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
> 
> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
> 
> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
> occurring, appears to be close
> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
> like it could be merged relatively soon
> 
> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
> 
> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
> work in progress):
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
> 
> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
> mention it here and I can update the notes.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Bryan
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
>> have traction in terms of review and discussion.
>> 
>> I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
>> anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
>> close!
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman <
>> r...@windofkeltia.com>
> wrote:
>>> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
> become
>>> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
>>> admiration!
>>> 
>>> Russ
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
 
 Robert,
 
 We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have
>> PRs
 and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
 stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So
>> perhaps
 next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
 right place to be watching to see it closing in.
 
 Thanks
 Joe
 
 On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>    issue and
>> would
> like
> to
> know when we can expect 1.2.0 release to be available.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> --
>>

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim  wrote:
> There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in the 
> RC:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
>
> Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs submitted 
> for them very soon.
>
> -Drew
>
>
>> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
>>
>> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
>> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that integration
>> [1] and resolved the original issue.
>>
>> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At this
>> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
>> configuring these builds.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
>>> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>>>
>>>
>>> -Drew
>>>
>>>
 On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:

 Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
 versions of UI components though.

 Thanks


 On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
>>> wrote:
> Hey Bryan,
>
> Please include the following in the release notes:
>
>
>  - Core UI
> - Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
> - Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
> - Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
> - Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
> - Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
> - Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
>  - User Experience Improvements
>  - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
> too...and now you can!
> - We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
> will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
> - Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
>>> Controller
> Services through an improved experience.
> - All actions available on the operate palette are now also
>>> available
> under the context menu too!
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>>
>> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>>
>> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
>> occurring, appears to be close
>> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
>> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
>> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
>> like it could be merged relatively soon
>>
>> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>>
>> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
>> work in progress):
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
>> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>>
>> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
>> mention it here and I can update the notes.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Bryan
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>> Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
>>> have traction in terms of review and discussion.
>>>
>>> I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
>>> anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
>>> close!
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman <
>>> r...@windofkeltia.com>
>> wrote:
 Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
>> become
 indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
 admiration!

 Russ


 On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
>
> Robert,
>
> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have
>>> PRs
> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So
>>> perhaps
> next week we'll be at that point and have a release.  This is the
> right place to be watching to see it closing in.
>
> Thanks
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 5:40 AM, roboh  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> is there any date set for 1.2.0 release yet?
>> We are running into an  NIFI-3389
>> 

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andy LoPresto]

I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.

Andy LoPresto
alopre...@apache.org
alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

> On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.
> 
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim  wrote:
>> There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in the 
>> RC:
>> 
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
>> 
>> Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs submitted 
>> for them very soon.
>> 
>> -Drew
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
>>> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that integration
>>> [1] and resolved the original issue.
>>> 
>>> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At this
>>> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
>>> configuring these builds.
>>> 
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
 regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
 
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
 
 
 -Drew
 
 
> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
> 
> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
> versions of UI components though.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
 wrote:
>> Hey Bryan,
>> 
>> Please include the following in the release notes:
>> 
>> 
>> - Core UI
>>- Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>>- Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>>- Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
>>- Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
>>- Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
>>- Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
>> - User Experience Improvements
>> - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
>>too...and now you can!
>>- We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
>>will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
>>- Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
 Controller
>>Services through an improved experience.
>>- All actions available on the operate palette are now also
 available
>>under the context menu too!
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>>> 
>>> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>>> 
>>> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
>>> occurring, appears to be close
>>> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
>>> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
>>> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
>>> like it could be merged relatively soon
>>> 
>>> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>>> 
>>> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
>>> work in progress):
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
>>> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>>> 
>>> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlighted, feel free to
>>> mention it here and I can update the notes.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> -Bryan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
 Looks like we are down to just a few tickets, and all of them seem to
 have traction in terms of review and discussion.
 
 I'll keep an eye on the tickets and start trying to pull together
 anything I can to get ready for the RC process. Seems like we are
 close!
 
 On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Russell Bateman <
 r...@windofkeltia.com>
>>> wrote:
> Many thanks to all the industrious folk working on this tool that's
>>> become
> indispensable to so many. The community has my enduring gratitude and
> admiration!
> 
> Russ
> 
> 
> On 04/24/2017 07:16 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
>> 
>> Robert,
>> 
>> We're about 10 or so JIRAs away at this point and all of them have
 PRs
>> and progress on them.  We need to close those down and do some
>> stabilization/testing then a release candidate can happen.  So
 perhaps
>> next week we'l

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andre]

folks,

I was just working to debug the final thorns found reviewing NIFI-3726 and
noticed an odd behavior and wanted to confirm.

If I recall correctly in the past users could simply replace a processor
NAR file and even if that NAR existed the flow would continue to work.

I just replaced

cp
~/nifi/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-cybersecurity-bundle/nifi-cybersecurity-nar/target/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
~/devel/nifi-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT/lib/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar

(note the different ~/nifi ~/devel used to ensure I don't explode the rest
of the already compiled components).

When I try to make changes to the flow I am displayed with the following
error:

[image: Inline image 1]

This happens even when I try to drag and drop connected processors around
the canvas.


Oddly enough I can still add and delete components to the canvas but
whatever touches the tainted processor cannot be modified at all.

Examples of messages:

*Attempt to move*

Component Position
[5, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e,
cb0a52ab-015b-1000-e43a-f6293a9ae99d] is not the most up-to-date revision.
This component appears to have been modified


*Attempt to delete a downstream processor*
Error
[1, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e,
cb0b2ae4-015b-1000-35a8-9eaf6a45fc6a] is not the most up-to-date revision.
This component appears to have been modified


I don't have a 1.1.0 instance around me at the moment but I vaguely
remember being able to do that in the past.

Can someone confirm this is new and expected behavior?

Cheers


On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Andy LoPresto  wrote:

> I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
> Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim 
> wrote:
>
> There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in
> the RC:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
>
> Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs
> submitted for them very soon.
>
> -Drew
>
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
>
> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that integration
> [1] and resolved the original issue.
>
> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At this
> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
> configuring these builds.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
> wrote:
>
> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>
>
> -Drew
>
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>
> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
> versions of UI components though.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
>
> wrote:
>
> Hey Bryan,
>
> Please include the following in the release notes:
>
>
> - Core UI
>- Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>- Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>- Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
>- Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
>- Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
>- Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
> - User Experience Improvements
> - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
>too...and now you can!
>- We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
>will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
>- Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
>
> Controller
>
>Services through an improved experience.
>- All actions available on the operate palette are now also
>
> available
>
>under the context menu too!
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>
> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>
> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
> occurring, appears to be close
> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
> - NIFI-3765 (Status operation for NodeManager) - Active review, looks
> like it could be merged relatively soon
>
> Once these are finalized we should be able to start the RC process.
>
> I've started putting together the release notes on the Wiki (still a
> work in progress):
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/
> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.2.0
>
> If anyone knows of anything that should be highlight

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Andre]

All,

For some reason my canvas did not refresh after a process bounce (which
generally occurs) but reloading page allows for modifications.

Cheers

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andre  wrote:

> folks,
>
> I was just working to debug the final thorns found reviewing NIFI-3726 and
> noticed an odd behavior and wanted to confirm.
>
> If I recall correctly in the past users could simply replace a processor
> NAR file and even if that NAR existed the flow would continue to work.
>
> I just replaced
>
> cp ~/nifi/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-cybersecurity-bundle/nifi-
> cybersecurity-nar/target/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
> ~/devel/nifi-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT/lib/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
>
> (note the different ~/nifi ~/devel used to ensure I don't explode the rest
> of the already compiled components).
>
> When I try to make changes to the flow I am displayed with the following
> error:
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> This happens even when I try to drag and drop connected processors around
> the canvas.
>
>
> Oddly enough I can still add and delete components to the canvas but
> whatever touches the tainted processor cannot be modified at all.
>
> Examples of messages:
>
> *Attempt to move*
>
> Component Position
> [5, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e, 
> cb0a52ab-015b-1000-e43a-f6293a9ae99d]
> is not the most up-to-date revision. This component appears to have been
> modified
>
>
> *Attempt to delete a downstream processor*
> Error
> [1, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e, 
> cb0b2ae4-015b-1000-35a8-9eaf6a45fc6a]
> is not the most up-to-date revision. This component appears to have been
> modified
>
>
> I don't have a 1.1.0 instance around me at the moment but I vaguely
> remember being able to do that in the past.
>
> Can someone confirm this is new and expected behavior?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Andy LoPresto 
> wrote:
>
>> I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.
>>
>> Andy LoPresto
>> alopre...@apache.org
>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>>
>> On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim 
>> wrote:
>>
>> There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in
>> the RC:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
>>
>> Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs
>> submitted for them very soon.
>>
>> -Drew
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
>>
>> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
>> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that integration
>> [1] and resolved the original issue.
>>
>> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At this
>> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
>> configuring these builds.
>>
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
>> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>>
>>
>> -Drew
>>
>>
>> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>
>> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
>> versions of UI components though.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hey Bryan,
>>
>> Please include the following in the release notes:
>>
>>
>> - Core UI
>>- Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>>- Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>>- Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
>>- Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
>>- Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
>>- Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
>> - User Experience Improvements
>> - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
>>too...and now you can!
>>- We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
>>will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
>>- Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
>>
>> Controller
>>
>>Services through an improved experience.
>>- All actions available on the operate palette are now also
>>
>> available
>>
>>under the context menu too!
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Looks like we are closer than we have ever been!
>>
>> Down to three outstanding JIRAs...
>>
>> - NIFI-1833 (Azure Processors) - Active review and discussion
>> occurring, appears to be close
>> - NIFI-3260 (Official Docker Image) - Active discussion, looks like
>> this may be moved from the release to a separate effort
>> - NIFI-3765 (Status operat

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Looks like all of the JIRAs have been resolved and we are in a good place.

I'll begin kicking off the RC process.

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Andre  wrote:

> All,
>
> For some reason my canvas did not refresh after a process bounce (which
> generally occurs) but reloading page allows for modifications.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andre  wrote:
>
>> folks,
>>
>> I was just working to debug the final thorns found reviewing NIFI-3726
>> and noticed an odd behavior and wanted to confirm.
>>
>> If I recall correctly in the past users could simply replace a processor
>> NAR file and even if that NAR existed the flow would continue to work.
>>
>> I just replaced
>>
>> cp ~/nifi/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-cybersecurity-bundle/nifi-cyber
>> security-nar/target/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
>> ~/devel/nifi-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT/lib/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
>>
>> (note the different ~/nifi ~/devel used to ensure I don't explode the
>> rest of the already compiled components).
>>
>> When I try to make changes to the flow I am displayed with the following
>> error:
>>
>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>
>> This happens even when I try to drag and drop connected processors around
>> the canvas.
>>
>>
>> Oddly enough I can still add and delete components to the canvas but
>> whatever touches the tainted processor cannot be modified at all.
>>
>> Examples of messages:
>>
>> *Attempt to move*
>>
>> Component Position
>> [5, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e, 
>> cb0a52ab-015b-1000-e43a-f6293a9ae99d]
>> is not the most up-to-date revision. This component appears to have been
>> modified
>>
>>
>> *Attempt to delete a downstream processor*
>> Error
>> [1, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e, 
>> cb0b2ae4-015b-1000-35a8-9eaf6a45fc6a]
>> is not the most up-to-date revision. This component appears to have been
>> modified
>>
>>
>> I don't have a 1.1.0 instance around me at the moment but I vaguely
>> remember being able to do that in the past.
>>
>> Can someone confirm this is new and expected behavior?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Andy LoPresto 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.
>>>
>>> Andy LoPresto
>>> alopre...@apache.org
>>> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
>>> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in
>>> the RC:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
>>>
>>> Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs
>>> submitted for them very soon.
>>>
>>> -Drew
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
>>>
>>> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
>>> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that
>>> integration
>>> [1] and resolved the original issue.
>>>
>>> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At
>>> this
>>> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
>>> configuring these builds.
>>>
>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
>>> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>>>
>>>
>>> -Drew
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>>>
>>> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
>>> versions of UI components though.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey Bryan,
>>>
>>> Please include the following in the release notes:
>>>
>>>
>>> - Core UI
>>>- Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>>>- Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>>>- Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
>>>- Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
>>>- Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
>>>- Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
>>> - User Experience Improvements
>>> - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
>>>too...and now you can!
>>>- We now provide deep links to any component(s) on the canvas. This
>>>will help make collaborating and sharing more natural.
>>>- Users will enjoy a better understanding of the scope of
>>>
>>> Controller
>>>
>>>Services through an improved experience.
>>>- All actions available on the operate palette are now also
>>>
>>> available
>>>
>>>under the context menu too!
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Looks lik

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

Quick update... I ran into two issues that will need to be addressed to
create the RC.

I've created JIRAs for them and tagged them as 1.2:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3795
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3793


On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

> Looks like all of the JIRAs have been resolved and we are in a good place.
>
> I'll begin kicking off the RC process.
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Andre  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> For some reason my canvas did not refresh after a process bounce (which
>> generally occurs) but reloading page allows for modifications.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andre  wrote:
>>
>>> folks,
>>>
>>> I was just working to debug the final thorns found reviewing NIFI-3726
>>> and noticed an odd behavior and wanted to confirm.
>>>
>>> If I recall correctly in the past users could simply replace a processor
>>> NAR file and even if that NAR existed the flow would continue to work.
>>>
>>> I just replaced
>>>
>>> cp ~/nifi/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-cybersecurity-bundle/nifi-cyber
>>> security-nar/target/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
>>> ~/devel/nifi-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT/lib/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0
>>> -SNAPSHOT.nar
>>>
>>> (note the different ~/nifi ~/devel used to ensure I don't explode the
>>> rest of the already compiled components).
>>>
>>> When I try to make changes to the flow I am displayed with the following
>>> error:
>>>
>>> [image: Inline image 1]
>>>
>>> This happens even when I try to drag and drop connected processors
>>> around the canvas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Oddly enough I can still add and delete components to the canvas but
>>> whatever touches the tainted processor cannot be modified at all.
>>>
>>> Examples of messages:
>>>
>>> *Attempt to move*
>>>
>>> Component Position
>>> [5, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e, 
>>> cb0a52ab-015b-1000-e43a-f6293a9ae99d]
>>> is not the most up-to-date revision. This component appears to have been
>>> modified
>>>
>>>
>>> *Attempt to delete a downstream processor*
>>> Error
>>> [1, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e, 
>>> cb0b2ae4-015b-1000-35a8-9eaf6a45fc6a]
>>> is not the most up-to-date revision. This component appears to have been
>>> modified
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have a 1.1.0 instance around me at the moment but I vaguely
>>> remember being able to do that in the past.
>>>
>>> Can someone confirm this is new and expected behavior?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Andy LoPresto 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.

 Andy LoPresto
 alopre...@apache.org
 *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
 PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69

 On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

 Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.

 On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim 
 wrote:

 There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include in
 the RC:

 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774

 Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs
 submitted for them very soon.

 -Drew


 On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:

 Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
 Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that
 integration
 [1] and resolved the original issue.

 We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At
 this
 time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
 configuring these builds.

 [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772

 On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim >>> >
 wrote:

 I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance doc
 regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:

 https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720


 -Drew


 On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:

 Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
 versions of UI components though.

 Thanks


 On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 

 wrote:

 Hey Bryan,

 Please include the following in the release notes:


 - Core UI
- Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
- Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
- Upgraded npm version to 3.10.10.
- Upgraded jQuery version to 3.1.1.
- Upgraded D3 version to 3.5.17.
- Reduced download size by removing bundled dependencies.
 - User Experience Improvements
 - Ever wish that it was easier to align components on the canvas? Me
too...and now you can!
- We now provide deep links to any co

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Bryan Bende]

The issues from yesterday have been resolved so I'll start kicking off
another attempt at the RC process.


On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

> Quick update... I ran into two issues that will need to be addressed to
> create the RC.
>
> I've created JIRAs for them and tagged them as 1.2:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3795
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3793
>
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
>> Looks like all of the JIRAs have been resolved and we are in a good place.
>>
>> I'll begin kicking off the RC process.
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Andre  wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> For some reason my canvas did not refresh after a process bounce (which
>>> generally occurs) but reloading page allows for modifications.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andre  wrote:
>>>
 folks,

 I was just working to debug the final thorns found reviewing NIFI-3726
 and noticed an odd behavior and wanted to confirm.

 If I recall correctly in the past users could simply replace a
 processor NAR file and even if that NAR existed the flow would continue to
 work.

 I just replaced

 cp ~/nifi/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-cybersecurity-bundle/nifi-cyber
 security-nar/target/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
 ~/devel/nifi-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT/lib/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0
 -SNAPSHOT.nar

 (note the different ~/nifi ~/devel used to ensure I don't explode the
 rest of the already compiled components).

 When I try to make changes to the flow I am displayed with the
 following error:

 [image: Inline image 1]

 This happens even when I try to drag and drop connected processors
 around the canvas.


 Oddly enough I can still add and delete components to the canvas but
 whatever touches the tainted processor cannot be modified at all.

 Examples of messages:

 *Attempt to move*

 Component Position
 [5, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e,
 cb0a52ab-015b-1000-e43a-f6293a9ae99d] is not the most up-to-date
 revision. This component appears to have been modified


 *Attempt to delete a downstream processor*
 Error
 [1, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e,
 cb0b2ae4-015b-1000-35a8-9eaf6a45fc6a] is not the most up-to-date
 revision. This component appears to have been modified


 I don't have a 1.1.0 instance around me at the moment but I vaguely
 remember being able to do that in the past.

 Can someone confirm this is new and expected behavior?

 Cheers


 On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Andy LoPresto 
 wrote:

> I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
> Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim 
> wrote:
>
> There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include
> in the RC:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
>
> Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs
> submitted for them very soon.
>
> -Drew
>
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
>
> Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
> Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that
> integration
> [1] and resolved the original issue.
>
> We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At
> this
> time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
> configuring these builds.
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim <
> andrewlim.apa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I will be making updates to the Release Notes and Migration Guidance
> doc
> regarding the TLS 1.2 version support.  Tracked by:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3720
>
>
> -Drew
>
>
> On May 2, 2017, at 11:08 AM, Joe Witt  wrote:
>
> Those are great updates.  I'd recommend we avoid highlighting the
> versions of UI components though.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Scott Aslan 
>
> wrote:
>
> Hey Bryan,
>
> Please include the following in the release notes:
>
>
> - Core UI
>- Circular references have been removed and the code modularized.
>- Upgraded Node version to 6.9.3.
>- Upgraded npm v

Re: Closing in on a NiFi 1.2.0 release?

[Joe Gresock]

Would it be appropriate to add mention of the 2 new site-to-site reporting
tasks (status and bulletin) in the release notes?


Virus-free.
www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:

> The issues from yesterday have been resolved so I'll start kicking off
> another attempt at the RC process.
>
>
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 6:10 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
>
> > Quick update... I ran into two issues that will need to be addressed to
> > create the RC.
> >
> > I've created JIRAs for them and tagged them as 1.2:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3795
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3793
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> >
> >> Looks like all of the JIRAs have been resolved and we are in a good
> place.
> >>
> >> I'll begin kicking off the RC process.
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Andre  wrote:
> >>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> For some reason my canvas did not refresh after a process bounce (which
> >>> generally occurs) but reloading page allows for modifications.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Andre  wrote:
> >>>
>  folks,
> 
>  I was just working to debug the final thorns found reviewing NIFI-3726
>  and noticed an odd behavior and wanted to confirm.
> 
>  If I recall correctly in the past users could simply replace a
>  processor NAR file and even if that NAR existed the flow would
> continue to
>  work.
> 
>  I just replaced
> 
>  cp ~/nifi/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-cybersecurity-bundle/nifi-cyber
>  security-nar/target/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.nar
>  ~/devel/nifi-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT/lib/nifi-cybersecurity-nar-1.2.0
>  -SNAPSHOT.nar
> 
>  (note the different ~/nifi ~/devel used to ensure I don't explode the
>  rest of the already compiled components).
> 
>  When I try to make changes to the flow I am displayed with the
>  following error:
> 
>  [image: Inline image 1]
> 
>  This happens even when I try to drag and drop connected processors
>  around the canvas.
> 
> 
>  Oddly enough I can still add and delete components to the canvas but
>  whatever touches the tainted processor cannot be modified at all.
> 
>  Examples of messages:
> 
>  *Attempt to move*
> 
>  Component Position
>  [5, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e,
>  cb0a52ab-015b-1000-e43a-f6293a9ae99d] is not the most up-to-date
>  revision. This component appears to have been modified
> 
> 
>  *Attempt to delete a downstream processor*
>  Error
>  [1, cb0a31ac-015b-1000-7473-873a47eb702e,
>  cb0b2ae4-015b-1000-35a8-9eaf6a45fc6a] is not the most up-to-date
>  revision. This component appears to have been modified
> 
> 
>  I don't have a 1.1.0 instance around me at the moment but I vaguely
>  remember being able to do that in the past.
> 
>  Can someone confirm this is new and expected behavior?
> 
>  Cheers
> 
> 
>  On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Andy LoPresto 
>  wrote:
> 
> > I’ll review & merge as soon as they are available.
> >
> > Andy LoPresto
> > alopre...@apache.org
> > *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> >
> > On May 2, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Bryan Bende  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Drew. These seem like good candidates for the release.
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lim <
> andrewlim.apa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > There are three doc updates/additions that would be great to include
> > in the RC:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3701
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3773
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3774
> >
> > Sarah Olson and I have been working on these.  We should have PRs
> > submitted for them very soon.
> >
> > -Drew
> >
> >
> > On May 2, 2017, at 2:11 PM, Aldrin Piri 
> wrote:
> >
> > Haven't had much luck in getting our Docker efforts incorporated into
> > Docker Hub.  As a result I have created an issue to track that
> > integration
> > [1] and resolved the original issue.
> >
> > We can evaluate our options and figure out the best path forward.  At
> > this
> > time procedures are not yet well established within ASF to support
> > configuring these builds.
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3772
> >
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Lim <
> > andrewlim.apa...@gm