> it is always connected to external systems, and mostly exposed to the Internet by connecting to many systems.
Depending on what you mean by this, I think this could be a very bad thing for a company akin to exposing something like Kibana without going through a VPN. On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 3:00 PM ski n <raymondmees...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is a good proposal. > > I would also like to share my experience as an integration consultant > implementing various integration systems for large enterprises. > > In general, these organizations are very conservative. The milestone > releases (like those for 2.0) are completely ignored. It doesn't matter if > they are already running in production in other organizations. The first GA > release of a new major release isn't trusted either. Only after a couple of > minor releases and when there is a new long-term support release, they > start to think. > > Upgrading often disrupts day-to-day operations, business requirements, and > consumes resources. Only when an LTS arrives, the pressure from the > security/dev team is high enough, the project budget is available, it fits > into the company roadmap, and so on... does a migration/upgrade begin. With > thousands of flows and daily operations, all the migration and retesting > can take a long time. > > I think most organizations expect that version 1.x will be supported for > many years, next to the new major that has just arrived. I'm not saying > it's good, or possible, or safe, etc., but those are just the timelines and > expectations in large organizations. Companies like Microsoft and Oracle > understand this very well. They often offer (and charge for) very long > timelines for their operating systems and software. > > An open source project relies mostly on other open source projects. These > may or may not have an EOL. The problem on top of this with integration > software like NiFi is that, by its nature, it is always connected to > external systems, and mostly exposed to the Internet by connecting to many > systems. > > Thus make it very clear what the risks are, but still offer bug fixes for > some time, is probably the best way forward. > > Raymond > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:31 PM 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: > > >> > > > >> > > > > > >
