If I may: One large obstacle to "our" shift to v2.x is the absence of Java 8 support (unless I overlooked updates to the plan stated in November 2022 during release of version 1.19.0, Java 8 only remains in NiFi 1.x releases, which you hinted at remaining accurate).
I make this statement in support of multiple scenarios where we employ Apache NiFi. CVEs that are not addressed in v1.x would be a major concern. In our case, per requirements levied upon us, we must maintain compatibility with all active Long Term Support (LTS) versions of Java. I feel this is reinforced by LTS of RHEL 7, which just began and extends into 2028 and employs (by default) Java 8. Note the LTS dates currently indicated (reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_version_history): - Java 8 December 2030 - Java 11 January 2032 - Java 17 September 2029 - Java 21 September 2031 Thank you, JM -----Original Message----- From: Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2024 4:05 PM To: dev@nifi.apache.org Subject: [DISCUSS] 1.x Maintenance !-------------------------------------------------------------------| This Message Is From an External Sender Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. |-------------------------------------------------------------------! There have been some ongoing discussions [1,2] about what to bring back for PRs to 1.x vs trying to push forward with 2.x. There are of course great points from everyone. On the 2.x front, namely that 2.x has many improvements not just to components but the framework and UI as well, and that we've seen less contributions to the maintenance on the 1.x line. On the 1.x front that community members need to support 1.x for their users for the time being. I'm opening this discussion thread so we can collect everyone's thoughts so the PMC can make a sensible recommendation/decision moving forward. For myself, I think all bug PRs should be backported where prudent/possible, and even new features (although that can be a difficult backport due to moving the extensions in [3], but I recommend a separate PR against 1.x, hopefully a simple copy-paste if there are no Java 21-specific code issues, but please run contrib-check against Java 8 first). I disagree with the "atrophy" sentiment from [2], a mature release line normally experiences less contributions because it is mostly stable in its own right. Guiding users to 2.x IMO is the right call but many of us have to deal with the fact that it doesn't usually happen overnight, especially without a GA release. I opened this discussion with my opinions but if I may humbly speak for the PMC, we need your voice, and we look forward to all of your thoughts, opinions, and questions. Thank you, Matty B [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-13196__;!!HkW_WPl1peM!oK4J-OlEsDT4Hl0lVpbgtfPr1qvI-MyLLzjIjPmf0O8cfZFlSIaP7B8Ei8u6ou8_hDUuBxGEIQDtUKArfA$ [2] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/9018__;!!HkW_WPl1peM!oK4J-OlEsDT4Hl0lVpbgtfPr1qvI-MyLLzjIjPmf0O8cfZFlSIaP7B8Ei8u6ou8_hDUuBxGEIQD2THE6MA$ [3] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-12998__;!!HkW_WPl1peM!oK4J-OlEsDT4Hl0lVpbgtfPr1qvI-MyLLzjIjPmf0O8cfZFlSIaP7B8Ei8u6ou8_hDUuBxGEIQD3D-iGiA$ ----------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any files transmitted within are intended solely for the addressee or its representative and may contain company proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Publication, reproduction, forwarding, or content disclosure is prohibited without the consent of the original sender and may be unlawful. Concurrent Technologies Corporation and its Affiliates. www.ctc.com 1-800-282-4392 -----------------------------------------------------------------
