Kevin, Yeah we can do whatever we want as far as 'releases' of 2.0 that are prior to us officially considering it 2.0/stable.
That said - the migration tooling will be key to provide as we need to make the bridge as solid and stable as possible to help someone move from 1.x to 2.x. I dont know how related these two concepts (milestone releases and 1.x to 2.x ease really are). Thanks On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 10:27 AM Kevin Doran <kdo...@apache.org> wrote: > [hit the wrong keyboard shortcut, here is the rest of my thoughts] > > On this point from David: > > We may need to have a longer release candidate period, or more incremental > > fix releases > > for the initial 2.0.0 release train, but I do not expect delaying a 2.0.0 > > release for new features, as that is not part of the release goals. > > > > Would the community benefit from one or more milestone releases of 2.0, to > allow for a wider group to run / live on the proposed 2.0 prior to > releasing it as "stable"? I know we've never done a milestone release in > the past, and I'm not sure what ASF guidance is on the topic, but if it > could be beneficial we could look into that. > > Cheers, > Kevin > > On Jan 11, 2023 at 12:22:43, Kevin Doran <kdo...@apache.org> wrote: > > > I think this is a good, practical discussion. > > > > On the one hand, we can't put off 2.x any longer as we really need to > > updated the minimum required Java to 11. Updating main development to > > target 2.x feels like a good way drive progress on that along with the > > other 2.0 goals. > > > > On the other hand, the concerns are valid: moving all development to > > target 2.x puts the project at risk if we cannot release 2.0.0 on a > > reasonable timeline. The restricted scope of 2.0 helps, but this stated > > release goal feels risky to me: > > > > Implement Migration Tools for Upgrading Flows > > > > > > - Implement automated migration where possible to remap properties and > > features > > - Implement migration tools for manual conversion of XML Templates > > to JSON Flow Definitions > > - Create documentation for manual steps necessary where > > programmatic migration cannot be implemented > > - NiFi 2.0 should be capable of starting with ghosted components > > for removed Processors or Controller Services > > > > > > Removing deprecated components should be fairly straightforward and > quick, > > but automating and documenting migration is a large effort. > > > > On this po > > > > > > On Jan 10, 2023 at 09:32:31, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> The plan as I understand it is not to diverge and create separate > feature > >> development on the 1.x line, so I would expect all PRs to continue to be > >> submitted only to main. We would release 1.x as needed with major bug > >> fixes > >> or critical security updates, and these would be cherry-picked and/or > >> backported as necessary, mostly without the need for PRs, the same as we > >> would do if we were bringing fixes from main (1.20.0-SNAPSHOT) back to a > >> maintenance line like (1.19.x). For precedent, we followed this same > >> approach going from the 0.x line to 1.0.0 and there wasn't any major > >> issue. > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 7:07 AM Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> It was also mentioned in another thread that we need to have agreement > on > >> > >> our explicit strategy and support for 1.x going forward, did that > happen? > >> > >> > >> From: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > >> > >> Reply: Otto Fowler <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> <ottobackwa...@gmail.com> > >> > >> Date: January 10, 2023 at 07:02:34 > >> > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org <dev@nifi.apache.org> <dev@nifi.apache.org> > >> > >> Subject: Re: [discuss] NiFi 1.20 and NiFi 2.0 > >> > >> > >> There needs to be an update to the contributing guide as to how to > submit > >> > >> PRs to 1.x or 2.x etc. > >> > >> > >> From: Joe Witt <joew...@apache.org> <joew...@apache.org> > >> > >> Reply: dev@nifi.apache.org <dev@nifi.apache.org> <dev@nifi.apache.org> > >> > >> Date: January 9, 2023 at 15:53:16 > >> > >> To: dev@nifi.apache.org <dev@nifi.apache.org> <dev@nifi.apache.org> > >> > >> Subject: [discuss] NiFi 1.20 and NiFi 2.0 > >> > >> > >> Team, > >> > >> > >> As David mentioned in [1] following a successful NiFi 2.0 release goal > >> > >> planning - we are now going to start moving the 'main' line to be the > NiFi > >> > >> 2.0 line which will allow for the key work to take place. We will also > >> > >> move niFi 1.x to its appropriate support line. > >> > >> > >> It is also the case that we have nearly 100 JIRAs on NiFi 1.20 and we > have > >> > >> work in there including security items so it is time to make a release. > >> > >> The intent then is to initiate 1.20 and immediate after that change > 'main' > >> > >> to 2.0. > >> > >> > >> Going forward then all work on the 1.x line should be focused on > >> > >> maintaining existing features, dependencies, and helping 1.x users > migrate > >> > >> to the 2.x line. Otherwise, new feature work will happen on 'main' as it > >> > >> normally does and will come out in the NiFi 2.x release line. > >> > >> > >> Please flag key outstanding items as we narrow down the release > candidate > >> > >> for NiFi 1.20. > >> > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/qo4vvdw46235y7vy2crcd6l4m11wl7jz > >> > >> > >> >
