Hi Otto, Thanks for the reply, that is a good question.
There is certainly a need to maintain the current version 1 branch for some amount of time, but the exact amount of time will need to be determined. Point 10 of the Proposed Release Goals includes implementing migration tools, which will have to be implemented in subsequent version 1 releases, so support for version 1 would not go away any time soon. It will become more difficult to maintain libraries as time goes on, but we should also identify some strategies for subsequent maintenance releases. I anticipate the need for future votes to sunset version 1, but that should not occur until there has been significant work on version 2 and associated migration tools, with documentation. The main purpose of the 2.0 Proposed Release Goals is to focus that scope, and as you noted, we should give some parallel consideration to scoping for version 1 releases. Regards, David Handermann On Sat, Dec 10, 2022 at 8:42 PM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry to be late to this, the goals seem great. The question that comes to > my mind is will the current 1.x line will be maintained? > > That may be a parallel issue to the goals, but it is important if we are > dropping support for Java versions. > > I would think that *some* position on that has to be decided and > communicated ( if not voted on ). > > > > > From: David Handermann <exceptionfact...@apache.org> > <exceptionfact...@apache.org> > Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org <dev@nifi.apache.org> <dev@nifi.apache.org> > Date: December 10, 2022 at 10:46:51 > To: dev@nifi.apache.org <dev@nifi.apache.org> <dev@nifi.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Finalizing Release Goals for NiFi 2.0 > > Thanks for the additional feedback Ryan and Kevin! > > There appears to be general agreement on the path forward, so I will > initiate a vote thread soon. I'm sure there are additional details to be > worked out, and we can address those following a vote on the general > goals. > > Regards, > David Handermannn > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 5:41 PM Kevin Doran <kdo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Thanks, David. The updated wiki page looks good and I’m very supportive > of > > the proposal > > > > I support a narrower scope for 2.x and an eventual 3.x line sooner > rather > > than later. It takes some pressure off trying to fit everything into > this > > 2.x change / migration > > > > Kevin > > > > On Dec 7, 2022 at 18:07:35, Ryan Hendrickson < > > ryan.andrew.hendrick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The Proposed Release Goals and Deprecated Components and Features > pages > > > look great. > > > > > > I appreciate the minor leap of Java 11 as a 2.x requirement vs Java > 17. > > > > > > Maybe once there is a timeline, the 2.x branch could be scheduled only > to > > > be alive for a minor amount of time... a year, etc. Then a later 2.x > or > > 3.0 > > > release would bring about Java 17. > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 3:09 PM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Mike - what do you mean by "controller service-based configuration > for > > > > > > > > > Using controller services for configuring bundles that connect an > > > > > > external service such as Cassandra, Elasticsearch, etc. and removing > > > > > > the option to configure connections on the processor. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think you were suggesting the minimum version be Java 17, > were > > > > > > you? > > > > > > > > > I was. Partly as devil's advocate, partly because I actually want to > > > > > > use Java 17 as a daily driver. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 2:20 PM Mark Bean <mark.o.b...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree this is a great start to a discussion with pointers to > > important > > > > > > > docs for the 2.0 transition. Thanks David! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike - what do you mean by "controller service-based configuration > for > > > > > > > connection details"? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, the transition from Java 11 to 17 is not without potential > > issues. > > > > > > > I've discovered one already. [1] I support stepping up on Java > version > > > > > > > requirements. Perhaps rather than the currently stated "Requires > Java 8 > > > > > > or > > > > > > > Java 11", the requirement can be "Requires Java 11 or Java 17". I > don't > > > > > > > think you were suggesting the minimum version be Java 17, were you? > > > > > > Either > > > > > > > way, the issue with Java 17 needs to be identified and fixed as well > as > > > > > > > more thorough testing to find other possible edge cases before we > move > > > > > > > forward too aggressively. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-10958 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 1:33 PM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really good start on the discussion. One thing I'm curious about > is > > > > > > > > Java 11 vs 17. Java 8 -> 11 is major jump that I can understand > why > > > > > > > > businesses scoffed at that for a long time, but the lift from 11 > to > > 17 > > > > > > > > was about like 7 -> 8. A 2.0 release seems like a good time to > jump > > > > > > > > straight to the latest official LTS for Java and start > greenlighting > > > > > > > > new language features that might simplify things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also add (since I didn't see it) a design goal of forcing > a > > > > > > > > complete shift in all bundles to using controller service-based > > > > > > > > configurations for connection details. 2.0 feels like a really > good > > > > > > > > time for us to establish a community-wide best practice of > > > > > > > > centralizing configurations in dedicated components. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 9:13 AM Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, agreed. I am very supportive, as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for taking the time to put this together, David. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2022, at 4:07 AM, Pierre Villard < > > > > > > > > pierre.villard...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for putting this together David. This is an excellent > > > > > > writeup > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > it's great to have a release where we focus on tech debt as > well > > as > > > > > > > > making > > > > > > > > > > sure we stay up to date with our dependencies and what we > > support. > > > > > > > > This is > > > > > > > > > > a great opportunity for us to clean a lot of things in our > code > > > > > > and I > > > > > > > > can't > > > > > > > > > > wait for us to get started with this. I'm definitely a +1 to > > have a > > > > > > > > formal > > > > > > > > > > vote on this proposal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le mar. 6 déc. 2022 à 23:50, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> a > > > > > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> David, All, > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> This is an excellent writeup/good framing. I am supportive of > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > >> as-is since it is achievable and lays out a clear path. We > can > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > >> milestone releases of NiFi 2.0.0 along the way until we > achieve > > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > >> the stated goals. I assume migration bits will be the long > pole > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > >> once we have them sorted we can kick out a 2.0.0. We already > > > > > > have a > > > > > > > > > >> version guide that governs how long we'd keep 1.x maintained > > > > > > though > > > > > > > > > >> the phase out is pretty natural as we move main to a 2.0.0 > basis > > > > > > > > > >> anyway. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Not to confuse this thread but it makes me think we could do > a > > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > >> framing for a NiFi 3.0 which lays out a potentially new > approach > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > >> NiFi decoupling the web/interface from the runtime/operations > > and > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > > >> which is more fundamentally K8S based. But we can cross that > > > > > > bridge a > > > > > > > > > >> bit later. Does seem more and more like folks in the > community > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > >> like to know more about the potential directions we can go. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks! > > > > > > > > > >> Joe > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 1:53 PM David Handermann > > > > > > > > > >> <exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Team, > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> With the release of NiFi 1.19.0 deprecating support for Java > 8, > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > end > > > > > > > > > >> of > > > > > > > > > >>> the year provides a good opportunity for finalizing general > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > goals > > > > > > > > > >>> for NiFi 2.0. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Based on previous discussions from July 2021 [1] and June > 2022 > > > > > > [2], > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > > >>> seems to be general agreement with focusing a NiFi 2.0 > release > > on > > > > > > > > > >> reducing > > > > > > > > > >>> technical debt while providing a straightforward upgrade > path > > for > > > > > > > > current > > > > > > > > > >>> deployments. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> I have updated the NiFi 2.0 Proposed Release Goals [3] to > > reflect > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > > >>> recent progress in several areas. I also linked the > Deprecated > > > > > > > > Components > > > > > > > > > >>> and Features [4] page outlining the current state of > deprecated > > > > > > > > > >>> capabilities. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> The most recent update to the Proposed Release Goals > outlines > > > > > > > > > >> implementing > > > > > > > > > >>> migration tooling to make the upgrade process as easy as > > > > > > possible. > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > > > >>> addition of dedicated deprecation logging in NiFi 1.18.0 > makes > > it > > > > > > > > easier > > > > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > > > > >>> warn of breaking changes, but the goal of migration tooling > is > > to > > > > > > > > make it > > > > > > > > > >>> easier to upgrade configurations. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> The Proposed Release Goals does not include any release > > timelines > > > > > > > > right > > > > > > > > > >>> now, and we should anticipate supporting version 1 for a > > > > > > reasonable > > > > > > > > > >> period > > > > > > > > > >>> of time. As more and more libraries deprecate and drop > support > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > Java > > > > > > > > > >> 8, > > > > > > > > > >>> it will become increasingly difficult to maintain a support > > > > > > branch, > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > > >>> is one of the main drivers behind a NiFi 2.0 release that > drops > > > > > > > > support > > > > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > > > > >>> Java 8. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> The general development strategy should involve > transitioning > > the > > > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > >>> branch to a 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT version so new features and fixes > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > > >>> targeted to the new version. Migration tooling will need to > be > > > > > > > > > >> implemented > > > > > > > > > >>> on a version 1 support branch, and fixes can be backported > > where > > > > > > > > > >> possible, > > > > > > > > > >>> in preparation for subsequent version 1 releases. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> With that background, I would like to move to a formal vote > > soon, > > > > > > > > > >> changing > > > > > > > > > >>> the Proposed Release Goals document to Planned Release > Goals. > > > > > > Please > > > > > > > > > >> weigh > > > > > > > > > >>> the general goals highlighted, and if there are no major > > > > > > roadblocks > > > > > > > > > >>> identified, I will follow up soon with a vote thread. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > > > > > > >>> David Handermann > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> [1] > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/yj8scrdbx3pdo7990123mc03q24rn1m7 > > > > > > > > > >>> [2] > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/mm1xf3b9nvrcgytb92oy3swvvc45fl34 > > > > > > > > > >>> [3] > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/NiFi+2.0+Proposed+Release+Goals > > > > > > > > > >>> [4] > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Deprecated+Components+and+Features > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
