+1 binding Thanks! It would be nice if’s custom CA could be defined when connecting to git based flow repos.
Wes Render > On Feb 4, 2026, at 10:19 AM, Pierre Villard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Apache NiFi community, > > Following the discussion threads on both the dev and users mailing lists > [1][2], > I would like to call a formal vote on the deprecation of NiFi Registry. > > This vote will remain open for a minimum of 72 hours. > > == SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION == > > The discussion began on January 12, 2026, and received feedback from multiple > community members including PMC members, committers, and users. > > **Reasons for Deprecation:** > - NiFi Registry has accumulated a significant number of CVEs (double digits) > related to its Angular-based frontend that cannot be resolved through simple > dependency updates > - The sub-project has received minimal maintenance attention over the past > several years, beyond the UI rewrite effort > - As a PMC, we have an obligation to respond to CVEs in software we release > > **Alternatives Available:** > - NiFi 2.x introduced Git-based Flow Registry Clients (GitHub, GitLab, > Bitbucket, Azure DevOps) that provide direct integration with existing > version control infrastructure > - Kevin Doran, one of the original authors of NiFi Registry, noted that if > starting over today, a git repository client-based approach would likely > be preferred > - Future improvements such as NIP-13 (branch support) are planned for > git-based clients > > **Feature Gaps Identified:** > - Permission model for multi-tenant deployments (Mark Bean proposed an Access > Policy solution for Registry Clients) > - NAR autoloading from external sources (NIP-4 proposes Extensions Registry > Clients as a future solution) > - Some bugs in GitLab Flow Registry Client being addressed (NIFI-15475) > > **Community Feedback:** > - Kevin Doran, David Handermann, Scott Aslan, Matt Burgess, and Wes Render > expressed support for or no objection to the deprecation > - Shane Ardell and Scott Aslan have made significant progress on the UI > rewrite over the past months and expressed willingness to continue > - No strong objections were raised against deprecation > > == PROPOSAL == > > If this vote passes: > > 1. NiFi Registry will be marked as deprecated in documentation and codebase > 2. A deprecation notice will be added to the Apache NiFi website > 3. A deprecation warning will be displayed in NiFi Registry logs at startup > 4. A deprecation notice may be added to the NiFi Registry UI via a header > banner > 5. NiFi Registry would be planned for removal as part of NiFi 3.0 > > == IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS == > > 1. **This decision is REVERSIBLE.** If sufficient contributors step forward to > actively maintain and improve NiFi Registry, the deprecation status can be > reconsidered and reverted. The deprecation decision could be revisited > whenever discussions for NiFi 3 begin. > > 2. **The ongoing UI rewrite work should continue regardless of this vote's > outcome.** We have a responsibility to address the existing CVEs for > software > we ship. The work by Shane Ardell and Scott Aslan is appreciated and should > be completed. > > 3. **There is NO KNOWN TIMELINE for NiFi 3.0.** With major work ongoing for > NIP-11 (Connectors) on a development branch, formal steps toward NiFi 3 are > not expected until after that feature lands. Any potential removal of NiFi > Registry would not happen before NiFi 3.0, giving users significant time to > plan migrations. > > == VOTE == > > Please cast your vote: > > [ ] +1 - I approve the deprecation of NiFi Registry > [ ] 0 - I have no strong opinion > [ ] -1 - I do not approve (please provide technical justification) > > Per Apache voting guidelines, PMC member votes are binding. Community member > votes are welcome and encouraged. > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/jo7v158k3zr2o93chsm3mh8zkl6lgz8v > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/tkp3cdzxwwrhoxp4txx145vfrko91gs3 > > Thanks, > Pierre
