+1 (non-binding) I'm all in favor of NiFi Registry being part of the NiFi codebase. However, I'm discovering some build issues specific to nifi-registry when building on a private network. I consider this just growing pains, and fully support the overall concept and associated advantages!
-Mark On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:57 PM Joey Frazee <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > -joey > > > On Jul 16, 2021, at 11:54 AM, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > +1 > > > >> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 2:31 PM Kevin Doran <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> +1. > >> > >>>> On Jul 16, 2021, at 2:28 PM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Yep definitely. Thought this was sorted via the JIRA. > >>> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:26 AM David Handermann > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for handling this, Matt. As one of the reviewers on the PR, I > vote > >>>> +1 (non-binding). > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> David Handermann > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 1:20 PM Matt Burgess <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> All, > >>>>> > >>>>> We've been asked to record our consensus for the move of NiFi > Registry > >>>>> to the NiFi codebase in a mailing list thread for posterity. Most > >>>>> discussion happened on the PR but INFRA would like a link to this > >>>>> thread showing consensus from PMC members, committers, and the > >>>>> community. > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn't put my +1 on the PR but I am in favor of moving the NiFi > >>>>> Registry codebase into NiFi :) Please feel free to share your > thoughts > >>>>> as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you, > >>>>> Matt > >>>>> > >> >
