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: > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
