I also agree with this stance for an initial period of transition time, but
this obviously has a huge impact on contributions. Without any kind of end
date, I worry this is going to be policy indefinitely. Because of this, I
tend to agree with what Rob said in the previous email. Maybe once 2.0 is
+1 Rob
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 8:17 AM Robert Fellows
wrote:
> The new UI has progressed quite well and I agree with this stance. However,
> with 2.0 getting close, one could argue that new UI features should
> definitely land in the new UI but only really need to land in the original
> UI if
The new UI has progressed quite well and I agree with this stance. However,
with 2.0 getting close, one could argue that new UI features should
definitely land in the new UI but only really need to land in the original
UI if desired or to support backward compatibility.
--Rob
On Tue, Apr 23,
Thanks for sending this out Matt! I agree that at this point any new
features to the frontend should be implemented in both the new and the
existing UI. Updating the contributions guidelines seems appropriate as
well.
-Scott
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 4:07 PM Matt Gilman wrote:
> Team,
>
>
Team,
Substantial progress has been made on modernizing the NiFi UI under [1] and
[2]. As detailed in the JIRAs, this effort has been largely motivated by
moving away from deprecated and unsupported dependencies. As we begin the
process to transition to the new UI, we are at a point where any UI
