Mike, I do not believe there is a viable path that addresses the JVM base, Spring base, Jetty base, Front-end Code changes, and the many other realities of how crusty the 1.x line has become that would not end up effectively just being what NiFi 2.0 is already. And for sure what you're suggesting we can estimate rather well given we did all these things already.
As far as declaring EOL now, in 3 months, one year.... All of these timelines are fine provided we (the PMC) have specific people volunteering to do what is proposed. Can you please suggest or specify what you would change relative to the latest proposal? Thanks On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 8:16 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote: > Joe, > > One way forward to help out users on 1.X would be to explore creating an > EOL support release of 1.28 that incorporates the 2.0 Spring 6 changes, > bumps the JDK requirement to 17 and provides a "just good enough" Java 17 > baseline support. I don't know what the LOE would be on the front end side > for Angular support, but I think a 1.29 release that only gets point > releases that incorporate CVE fixes and that is supported for a year would > be a compromise most users could accept. > > I share Russ's concerns and think that we run the risk of a creating a > major perception problem if we don't provide a longer migration period for > teams on 1.X. > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 1:56 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > "I'm not sure what "we will not be doing further analysis/triage of > > security > > reports" means, especially the term "we". Seems like if we do that during > > the release process already then we shouldn't stop. If it refers to > > community members having to do such analysis themselves, I'm not sure why > > we'd make a point of saying we won't." > > > > It is a proposal. So 'we' is all of us - as proposed. More specifically > > though the 'we' represented there are those who are on and participate in > > the security mailing list which is where reports of vulnerabilities or > > suspected vulnerabilities or just questions that people aren't sure are > > security related or not come into. When things are reported against 1.x > > they require analysis to determine if it is actually vulnerable and to > > craft/consider fixes. > > > > It is essential we are clear about our posture there. We do not want > users > > expecting/assuming reports against 1.x will be receiving a level of > > scrutiny and follow-through that they will not. My proposal is that we > > make it clear and don't address such reports on the 1.x line any longer > and > > are able to cite/refer to the items in the proposal. > > > > We would still of course still do dependency bumps as normal course but > > that alone with bug fixes are subject to people in the community doing > that > > work. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 11:35 AM Matt Burgess <mattyb...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > My two cents: > > > > > > 1. The EOL/EOS label is fine with me, as Apache software I'm not even > > sure > > > what that means in general (sounds like more of a marketing thing), > but I > > > have seen other projects like Hive vote for EOL of older release lines. > > For > > > your proposed definition, reasonable periodic bug fixes and dependency > > > upgrades based on discovered vulnerabilities also sound good. However > I'm > > > not sure what "we will not be doing further analysis/triage of security > > > reports" means, especially the term "we". Seems like if we do that > during > > > the release process already then we shouldn't stop. If it refers to > > > community members having to do such analysis themselves, I'm not sure > why > > > we'd make a point of saying we won't. > > > > > > I certainly agree that there should be no new features added in 1.28.x, > > but > > > in terms of bug fix / vulnerability things, I would like to just have > > > dot-releases as necessary, so no 1.29 but perhaps a 1.28.2 or .3 as the > > > need arises. The community is free to vote or abstain from voting as > they > > > choose. I also don't think there needs to be any cadence, just someone > > > bringing it up for discussion (and having a good reason to produce a > > > release). > > > > > > I agree with points 2-6. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Matt > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 11:31 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > To be actionable and concrete here is a proposal: > > > > > > > > 1. Declare the NiFi 1.28.x line as the 'End of Life/End of Support' > > line. > > > > This means we may still do periodic bug fixes or when > > possible/reasonable > > > > bump vulnerable libs. But we will not be doing further > analysis/triage > > > of > > > > security reports nor adding features. > > > > > > > > 2. Add a DISCLAIMER to the source and key binaries of the 1.x/1.28 > line > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > 3. Update the downloads page making the links for nifi source and the > > > main > > > > nifi assembly of whatever is the latest NiFi 1.28.x release there but > > > > clearly articulated as the end of support line for which bug fixes > and > > > some > > > > narrow dependency updates may occur. Advise users of the 1.x line of > > the > > > > importance of planning to migrate to the 2.x line. > > > > > > > > 4. Conduct a VOTE to codify this. > > > > > > > > 5. Conduct an Apache NiFi 1.28.1 release to pickle up (2) and the bug > > > fixes > > > > already available. > > > > > > > > 6. As we gather more user input on things which are helpful to them > we > > > > factor these into migration guidance/tooling as appropriate on the > 2.x > > > > line. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/9491 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 9:04 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Team, > > > > > > > > > > I will start a discussion thread on the users list so we can hear > > more > > > > > inputs from them and from that perspective. > > > > > > > > > > This thread needs to focus on what the contributors/committers/PMC > in > > > the > > > > > community can/will/should do and the PMC in particular as we're > > > obligated > > > > > to ensure we're putting out software for which we can stand behind > > its > > > > > security posture. > > > > > > > > > > We do not need to get worried about customers. They have vendors > > that > > > > > support them. What we need to worry about and continue to do an > > > > excellent > > > > > job caring for is the apache nifi user base and we need to ensure > > they > > > > > don't have the belief that the NiFi 1.x line will be fixed in the > > > > presence > > > > > of vulnerability reports. I'll ask on the users list how folks > would > > > > like > > > > > us to communicate about the state of things. > > > > > > > > > > What I think we need to ask here is more in the spirit of what this > > > > thread > > > > > was started about. When do we as a contributor/committer/PMC base > > want > > > > to > > > > > make it official in our own sense that we will not be producing > > > releases > > > > > for the 1.x line? How we best communicate/help the user base then > > > > follows > > > > > from that. Stated another way those who feel they will be in a > good > > > > > position to do security reviews, vulnerability scans and > remediation, > > > > > conduct releases for some period of time please share what you > think > > > > you'll > > > > > be able to do and roughly for how long. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 3:36 AM Pierre Villard < > > > > pierre.villard...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > >> While I think we could set an EOL date a bit further in the > future, > > it > > > > is > > > > >> important to keep in mind what EOL means. It only means we won't > be > > > > >> providing security fixes / bug fixes through new releases. It does > > not > > > > >> mean that NiFi 1.x is gone. If that is a big concern for some > users > > > when > > > > >> running EOL software then we should remind those users that > they've > > > been > > > > >> doing it for 2+ years already when using NiFi 1.x (taking Jetty as > > an > > > > >> example here). And Joe is definitely right when saying that we > have > > a > > > > >> smaller and smaller group of people willing to spend an extensive > > > amount > > > > >> of > > > > >> time taking care of PR/reviews, of release candidates, > > > > testing/validating > > > > >> RCs, etc, for the 1.x line. > > > > >> > > > > >> I also agree that, even if many users are already using NiFi 2 in > > > > >> production, many places have strict policies to not adopt a new > > major > > > > >> release. I don't want to start a debate whether this is making > sense > > > or > > > > >> not > > > > >> but we know those rules exist in many places :) And the fact that > we > > > had > > > > >> milestone releases for one year is not going to be enough of an > > > > argument. > > > > >> > > > > >> Given what we've seen in the past, we usually make a new release > > > every 3 > > > > >> months or so. It's probably fair to assume a 2.1.0 release will > > happen > > > > >> early next year. With that in mind, I tend to agree with Michael > > > > >> suggesting > > > > >> an EOL date at the end of January (3 months from now). We could > also > > > say > > > > >> that 1.28.1 will happen at this time and will be the last one in > the > > > > >> community. > > > > >> > > > > >> Vendors have already announced support for NiFi 1.x for multiple > > > > >> additional > > > > >> years so this approach follows what we see in other projects where > > > > >> extended > > > > >> support is only provided through paid options with specific > > companies. > > > > >> > > > > >> It is awesome to finally see 2.0 out and this decision will help > > drive > > > > >> users to that new release, which is much better in so many ways... > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Pierre > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Le mar. 5 nov. 2024 à 10:36, Isha Lamboo < > > > > isha.lam...@virtualsciences.nl> > > > > >> a > > > > >> écrit : > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I understand the reasons to declare an EOL quickly, given the > > > external > > > > >> > dependencies, but like Russell said before the short notice is > > going > > > > to > > > > >> > cause trouble with our bigger corporate customers. It would have > > > been > > > > >> nice > > > > >> > to have the EOL date announced about a year ago, even if it had > > > been a > > > > >> > provisional one. The more you can delay it now, the less > > > credibility I > > > > >> (and > > > > >> > NiFi itself) lose :-\ > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I've been pushing since the first announcement of NiFi 2.0 for > our > > > > >> > customers to prepare. The smaller NiFi instances are all > prepared. > > > But > > > > >> > there are also big customers with hundreds of flows that depend > on > > > > >> > variables and XML templates, and as you can imagine this was > > never a > > > > >> > priority for them without either a NiFi 2.0 GA to move to or an > > > actual > > > > >> EOL > > > > >> > date to get security officers upping the priority. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Now we have a GA release finally, but corporate Q4 plans are set > > in > > > > >> stone > > > > >> > and Q1 2025 plans are already filling up. Telling the customers' > > > > >> > development teams to upend their plans and tell their business > > > > >> customers to > > > > >> > forget deliveries because NiFi needs to be fixed ASAP is > probably > > > not > > > > >> going > > > > >> > to fly and instead going to seriously dent NiFi's reputation and > > > > >> position. > > > > >> > Unless we can automate the flow migration process it's going to > > be a > > > > >> > year-long migration at least. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > That said, are there any tools or scripts to make the migration > > > > >> smoother? > > > > >> > Configuring multiple levels of parameter contexts with > inheritance > > > is > > > > a > > > > >> > labor-intensive process if we are to mirror the current setup > with > > > > >> > variables being inherited from main canvas, team PG, subject PG > > and > > > > flow > > > > >> > PG, etc. Anything that could go through the process groups and > > > > configure > > > > >> > this automatically would be greatly appreciated. I will look > into > > > that > > > > >> > myself too, but anything helps really. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Regards, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Isha > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > > > >> > Van: Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > > > > >> > Verzonden: maandag 4 november 2024 23:44 > > > > >> > Aan: dev@nifi.apache.org > > > > >> > Onderwerp: Re: [DISCUSS] End-of-life timing for NiFi 1 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The EOL discussion is not here because we have a new problem. > It > > is > > > > >> here > > > > >> > because we finally have an answer. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The inability to address reported vulnerabilities or fundamental > > end > > > > of > > > > >> > life status for key underlying components in the 1.x line is a > > > problem > > > > >> that > > > > >> > was fully recognized three years ago. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > In that time we created a plan for what NiFi 2.0 would be and > how > > > we'd > > > > >> > manage both maintaining the 1.x line while building to the 2.x > GA. > > > In > > > > >> the > > > > >> > past year we've conducted four milestone releases of NiFi 2.x > and > > > > we've > > > > >> > continued putting out feature, bug fix, and security improvement > > > > >> releases > > > > >> > of 1.x. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Feature bearing releases of 1.x are no longer appropriate as 2.x > > is > > > > here > > > > >> > and GA and that was the plan all along. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Bug fixes are still reasonable in spirit but you need people to > > > submit > > > > >> the > > > > >> > JIRAs, fix the JIRAs, peer review the changes, and to conduct > > > releases > > > > >> and > > > > >> > make votes. That is in increasingly short supply as it has been > > > quite > > > > >> the > > > > >> > task splitting attention across two major lines and naturally > > > > developers > > > > >> > and users will gravitate toward the go forward path. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Vulnerability/Security related considerations are where things > are > > > > >> > fundamentally problematic. We had a security report today about > > the > > > > >> super > > > > >> > old/outdated front-end libraries we use in 1.x. That won't > > change. > > > > We > > > > >> had > > > > >> > a report last week about Spring libraries needing updated except > > you > > > > >> can't > > > > >> > unless you have Pivotal support so not an option. Those won't > > > change. > > > > >> We > > > > >> > have had questions around Jetty changes but that is tied to Java > > 8. > > > > >> We've > > > > >> > had questions about Java 8 being end of life and even Java 11 > and > > > even > > > > >> now > > > > >> > Java 17 in terms of its codebase permissive licensing changing. > > The > > > > >> things > > > > >> > we can reasonably address in the 1.x line are getting smaller > and > > > > >> smaller > > > > >> > and the time required to address any new thing is higher and > > higher. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > We as a community, regardless of good intentions, cannot fix the > > > > >> illities > > > > >> > of the 1.x line and thus the 2.x line is here. The 1.x line > will > > > > >> > absolutely continue to atrophy and it will accelerate. If we do > > not > > > > >> signal > > > > >> > EOL on 1.x that means we're saying we can keep fixing problems. > > > While > > > > >> that > > > > >> > is true for bugs, that is not true for vulnerabilities broadly > and > > > for > > > > >> our > > > > >> > most critical components. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > If you still fix bugs people assume this means you still > > reasonably > > > > fix > > > > >> > vulnerabilities/etc.. And unless we declare EOL on the 1.x line > > we > > > > will > > > > >> > continue to get non-serviceable reports and mislead the user > base. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The answer is to clearly signal that users should transition to > > the > > > > 2.x > > > > >> > line and focus our help on answering questions people might have > > on > > > > how > > > > >> to > > > > >> > do that. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I am supportive of EOL for the 1.x line. I also like the poetic > > > > nature > > > > >> of > > > > >> > the decade timing. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 2:47 PM David Handermann < > > > > >> > exceptionfact...@apache.org> > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
