Github user PuspenduBanerjee commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/218#discussion_r52863379
--- Diff: nifi-bootstrap/pom.xml ---
@@ -41,5 +41,12 @@
org.apache.nifi
nifi-expression-language
Ran through the helper, verified the resulting binary and ran some templates.
+1 (non-binding)
Joe
- - - - - - Joseph Percivall
linkedin.com/in/Percivall
e: joeperciv...@yahoo.com
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 9:58 PM, Matt Burgess wrote:
Ran the helper, verified the artifacts look good,
Your on the right track / idea with Git-flow. Your Master become primary
development of next release (with feature branches off of it).. while you
continue to have release branches that can have hot fix branches off of
them. (don't use Master as your release branch ! - bad practice ! )
Here is t
Ran the helper, verified the artifacts look good, ran with some scripting
processors.
+1 (non-binding)
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Tony Kurc wrote:
> Hello
> I am pleased to be calling this vote for the source release of Apache NiFi
> nifi-0.5.0.
>
> The source zip, including signatures, d
Github user trkurc commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/218#discussion_r52849296
--- Diff: nifi-bootstrap/pom.xml ---
@@ -41,5 +41,12 @@
org.apache.nifi
nifi-expression-language
GitHub user olegz opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/222
NIFI-614 Added initial support for new style JMS
NIFI-614 finalized JMSConnectionFactoryProvider ControllerService
NIFI-614 finalized implementation of both Processors and ControllerService
Mat, I'm not entirely sure that a release branch would have helped. As I
mentioned, we sort of used master as the release branch. I just built off
of the wrong commit, which could happen even with a release branch. That
being said, I think it is a good idea (I think it would have helped with
the 0.
