Team,
I think we are there! Going to kick out RC1 now.
Thanks
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:29 AM Joe Witt wrote:
> Team,
>
> As you can see I've not kicked off the RC yet. Many bug fixes/dependency
> updates are happening. Ideally we'll wait until nar Maven plugin goes and
> we're trying to fix some nifi registry/nifi interaction issues as well.
> Still will get the RC out as soon as we can.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 11:12 AM Joe Witt wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Here is a good picture of what the 1.20 RC looks like. I've
>> tagged several JIRAs today to ensure we get them in. A theme is really
>> around stabilizing nifi/nifi-registry integration as we're seeing
>> substantial uptick in usage and thus various community reported findings.
>> We'll get that quite smooth with these included.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/NIFI/versions/12352581
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 8:50 AM Joe Witt wrote:
>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> I'm going through the outstanding JIRAs/PRs and flagging which look like
>>> they should be 'must have' for 1.20 and then will work the RC as soon as
>>> those land.
>>>
>>> Hopefully have the RC up within a day or two but we'll see how these
>>> land as some have review comments pending action.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 2:53 AM Isha Lamboo <
>>> isha.lam...@virtualsciences.nl> wrote:
>>>
Hi all,
I would like to contribute to the migration tooling (mostly testing I
suppose) when that comes up.
My team's largest client has a completely template-based pipeline with
external scripts replacing variable values before deploying to target
clusters, so we've already started looking at this when the goals for 2.0
were discussed and approved. The migration to flowdefinitions and
parameters is quite complex and we've hit several blockers when we tried to
implement a direct translation.
I expect that any time I spend helping to improve the tooling will pay
off handsomely for our clients.
Regards,
Isha
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Adam Taft
Verzonden: woensdag 11 januari 2023 23:42
Aan: dev@nifi.apache.org
Onderwerp: Re: [discuss] NiFi 1.20 and NiFi 2.0
This is really insightful and spot on ...
Kevin wrote:
> Good migration tooling will take a while to develop and test, and the
> core contributors to that effort may not have sufficient variety of
> flows to evaluate when the migration tools are "done" for the
majority
> of the community to have success upgrading to 2.x. A milestone
release
> would
allow
> us get more feedback on migration over a longer period than the vote
window
> of an RC candidate.
It's exactly this case, that an early 2.0 release might not have had
time to fully work its way through existing production deployments, that's
concerning. The pace and voting of an "RC" is much too short to get any
quality feedback from users in the field.
I think it's really smart to consider the "Milestone" release approach
here. We release 2.0.0-M1, 2.0.0-M2, ... waiting an adequate amount of time
for feedback. We can put these milestones on a calendar, as needed, so that
feedback is required some 'x' number of weeks/months after each milestone.
And to this end, I'd personally rather see us keep the 'main' branch
current with the 1.x line _until_ we're ready and are satisfied with the
end goals of the 2.0 release objectives. When the milestone releases have
been completed and there's a comfort level with the 2.x line, it's at the
point we'd isolate the 1.x line into its own branch and switch main over to
the 2.x line.
This is an attractive way of:
a) continuing business-as-usual with the 1.x line
b) making headway on the 2.x release milestones
c) giving adequate time for feedback against the 2.0 milestones coming
from the field
I don't mind the known-unknowns. But it's really the unknown-unknowns
that are going to drive a delay in the 2.0 release. I think it's smart to
be able to get some of the unknowns ironed out before we finalize the 2.0
release ceremony. The milestone approach really helps with that.
/Adam
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 11:11 AM Kevin Doran wrote:
> Sorry, Joe, I was not clear, and to be honest the two thoughts are
> somewhat unrelated in my mind too :)
>
> I agree that good migration tooling is key. Otherwise, we risk users
> staying on 1.x or creating a schism of 1.x and 2.x users.
>
> Good migration tooling will take a while to develop and test, and the
> core contributors to that effort may not have sufficient variety of
> flows to evaluate when the migration tools are "done" for the
majority
> of the
