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
>
>
>
