The code is within the twitter4j library itself. I filed a request to twitter4jg. The most likely case is we will need to submit a PR to them. However, I don't see this as something that should delay the release. We can provide instructions for folks wanting to use the processor during the time we cannot make it available in a convenient manner. I will provide a meaningful comment about this in release notes and pointers on what folks can do in the meantime.
On Nov 15, 2016 7:41 PM, "Andy LoPresto" <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand there was a discussion thread within the NiFi community for > this as well and I missed responding to that at that time. It just seems to > me like JSON processing is necessary for GetTwitter, which is incredibly > useful for demonstrating NiFi’s ability to read from a high volume stream > out of the box. With NIFI-3019 (Remove GetTwitter from default build), is > there any related effort to substitute an acceptable replacement JSON > library to restore this functionality? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-3019 > > Andy LoPresto > [email protected] > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Andy LoPresto <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m working with Bryan Rosander to close out NIFI-3024, NIFI-2655, and > NIFI-2653. I believe Matt Burgess is working on NIFI-3011 and we > investigated some alternate TLS config options for the new version of the > client library. > > Is there any alternative to excluding the GetTwitter processor? Using > Johnzon [1] or the Android re-implementation [2] discussed in the mailing > list thread? > > [1] https://johnzon.apache.org/ > [2] https://developer.android.com/reference/org/json/package-summary.html > > > Andy LoPresto > [email protected] > *[email protected] <[email protected]>* > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69 > > On Nov 15, 2016, at 3:58 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Team > > Very happy to see that we are down to three items remaining tagged to > 1.1.0. Solid effort over the recent weeks to close the gap including work > to get past the now category x Jason dependency we had. The most notable > impact from that is the wildly popular GetTwitter processor, the fav new > nifi user and demo processor, can no longer be included in the default > build. It is optionally available if users choose to build and use it but > we won't distribute binaries that have it. > > I see some review movement on some patch available but untagged items. > > I plan to kick off the 1.1.0 rc work soon. Perhaps Thurs or Fri. Anyone > have any outstanding items? > > Thanks > Joe > > On Nov 8, 2016 2:12 PM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ryan > > Not officially but I think we should try to close this thing out and > start a vote in the next week or two at most. > > I'm going through the tickets again now. There is also a new issue of > the json-p license falling out of favor in Apache legal terms and > becoming Category-X. Am looking into that now. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Ryan Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe - Is there a target date for 1.1? > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Team, > > Just an update on things with working toward an Apache NiFi 1.1.0 > release. There are still about 33 JIRAs there now and some are > awaiting review and are some are under active progress. Yet there is > good traction and progress. I think we should just stay vigilant with > what makes it in and keep working it down. So let's please shoot for > a couple weeks from now. If it is ready sooner I'll jump on it. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Team, > > There are 31 open JIRAs at present tagged to Apache NiFi 1.1.0. Let's > avoiding putting more in there for now at least without a discussion. > Of the 31 JIRAs there the vast majority need review so we should be > able to close these down fairly quickly as long as we don't let the > list grow. > > Thanks > joe > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Edgardo Vega <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > Joe, > > Appreciate the offer it isn't my PR. I was just using it as an > > example. > > All > > mine are currently closed, which I greatly appreciate. > > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > On Friday, October 14, 2016, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edgardo, > > You mentioned a PR from August. I'd be happy to help you work that > through review. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Edgardo Vega < > > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > I have agreed that at this point a release is important. My goal > > was > > try > > to > > squeeze in a much goodness as possible into the release, but the > > important > > bug fixes should come first. Getting 1.x into a state where the > > release > > notes don't say that it is geared toward developers and testers is > > really > > huge. > > I think Nifi is a great community otherwise I would participate in > > the > > mailing list, create Jira tickets and pull requests. I am only > > trying to > > strengthen the great thing that is going on here. We can always do > > better. > > I was not trying to put down this community only to participate and > > make > > it > > better. I think this conversation is an indication of how great > > this > > community is. > > Maybe I am being sensitive about this issue and trying to > > strengthen > > the > > nifi community even more, after coming from a conference where it > > was > > reported there was lots of excitement at first and now the > > participation > > in > > the community has really died down and they are struggling. I don't > > want > > to > > see that happen here. > > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Andre <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Edgardo, > > Thank you for your feedback. We hear your comments and as a > > committer I > > can > > share we are constantly looking to improve the PR process, having > > already > > taken many of the steps you suggest. > > However, it is important to notice that the number of PRs should > > not be > > seen as a metric of engagement by the development community: Most > > of us > > will submit PRs so that our work can be carefully reviewed by our > > peers > > and > > some of us will use JIRA patches to provide contributions. > > Having said that, it is true that some PRs may sit idle for a long > > time > > and > > we are working to improve this pipeline. > > It was therefore no coincidence that I browsed most of the PRs > > performing > > a triage of items that have been superseded or diverged from the > > current > > code base. > > In fact, less than a month ago the dev team closed a number of > > stalled > > and > > superseded PRs (commit cc5e827aa1dfe2f376e9836380ba63c15269eea8). > > Despite all the above, I think Joe has a point. The master > > contain a > > series > > of important bug fixes and suspect the community would benefit > > from > > a > > release sooner rather than later. > > Once again, thank you for your feedback and contribution. It is > > good to > > have you here. > > Andre > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:30 PM, Edgardo Vega < > > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > Joe - You are correct I was mentioning the PRs that are > > currently > > open. > > > Regardless of how it happens reducing the count of open PRs I > > believe > > to > > be > > extremely important. Maybe I was hoping that the release could > > be > > a > > forcing > > function to make that happen. I believe that developers are more > > willing > > to > > contribute when they see that their PRs will actually be able > > accepted > > and > > merged into the code base. Having a low number of open PRs in > > progress > > is a > > great indication that the main nifi developers are fully engaged > > with > > the > > community. > > There are a few PRs that don't have any comments from committers > > at > > all. > > I > > found one from August in that state. If that was my PR I don't > > think I > > would be so willing to put another one in anytime soon. I do get > > that > > sometime PRs get stalled by the originator, if so maybe a rule > > about > > closing them after a certain amount of time or being taken over > > by a > > core > > contributor if they think it worthwhile. > > I would like to shoutout to James Wing on my last PR he was > > quick > > to > > review, provided great comments, testing, and even some > > additional > > code. > > It > > was a great PR experience. > > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Joe Percivall < > > [email protected] <javascript:;>. > > invalid> wrote: > > Joe, I think you misread. Edgardo is referring to the Pull > > Requests > > that > > are currently open, not the tickets assigned to the 1.1.0 > > version. > > > I think these goals (releasing 1.1.0 and cutting down the PR > > count) > > should > > be two different efforts. Doing a thorough job reviewing > > takes a > > significant amount of time from both the reviewer and > > contributor. > > In > > order > > to cut it down significantly would take much longer than a > > couple > > days. > > > Also there has already been a lot of great new features and > > bug > > fixes > > contributed to the 1.X line and I don't think it's worth > > holding up > > a > > 1.1.0 > > release for tickets not assigned to this fix version. As an > > added > > bonus > > though, I think many of the tickets tagged as 1.1.0 have PRs > > already > > open > > so closing those will make a large dent in the PR count. > > > Joe > > - - - - - - > Joseph Percivall > linkedin.com/in/Percivall > e: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > > On Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:58 PM, Joe Witt < > > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > There are less than 30 right now. Many of the roughly 90+ > > JIRAs > > opened on 1.1.0 were easily dispositioned to 1.2.0 or closed > > or > > just > > had fix versions removed. > > We will need to have a push over the next bunch of days to > > deal > > with > > reviewing/merging/moving the remaining items. > > Thanks > Joe > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Edgardo Vega < > > [email protected] <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > Joe, > > There are 75 PRs currently open. Why not make a push over > > the > > next > > bunch > > of > > days to get them closed and then cut the release after that. > > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Joe Witt < > > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > Team, > > There have been a ton of bugs fixed a few nice features. I > > would > > like > > to move to get Apache NiFi 1.1.0 release going pretty much > > based > > on > > where we are now and plan to move most tickets to a new > > Apache > > NiFi > > 1.2.0 version. We can try to get back on our roughly 6-8 > > week > > release > > schedule and shoot for a mid to late Nov release for NiFi > > 1.2.0 > > this > > way as well. Please advise if anyone has any other views on > > this. In > > the mean time I'll get the wheels in motion so you'll be > > seeing a > > lot > > of JIRA/issue updates to move version around. > > Thanks > Joe > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Tony Kurc < > > [email protected] > > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > Sounds good Joe. I have no issue to you doing the rm'ing > > for > > it. > > > On Oct 13, 2016 8:19 AM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected] > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Team, > > There are a lot of great fixes and improvements on the > > master > > line > > now > > and we're at a good time window to start pushing for a > > release. > > There > > are, however, about 90+ JIRAs assigned to 1.1.0 which > > are > > open. > > I'm > > going to go through them and remove fix versions where > > appropriate. > > > I'm happy to take on RM task for this release though if > > someone > > else > > would like to take that on please advise. > > Thanks > Joe > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > Edgardo > > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > > > >
