I'll avoid sharing more thoughts for now. I've shared enough. But I am directionally on page with what Handermann/Moser just wrote.
Thanks On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 1:33 PM David Handermann <exceptionfact...@apache.org> wrote: > I appreciate the sensitivity around end-of-life wording, but it is > important to send a clear message. > > The project cannot provide security-related updates because the > fundamental dependencies are already end-of-life: Jetty 9, Spring 5, > and AngularJS 1.8. > > To provide any type of statement that implies future support would be > inaccurate and misleading. We also need to provide a specific date in > the short term to make it clear that we will not be accepting or > backporting changes. > > The project management committee is responsible for handling releases > and security findings, and as such, we need to make it clear what we > can support. Although we might consider a rare exception for some > fundamental framework bug not previously known, that should not be > posted as an expressed or implied support for a future version. > > I'm open to calling it "end of development" or "end of support", but > we should avoid semantics that obscure the reality. > > Regards, > David Handermann > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 2:11 PM Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I believe many people place a certain meaning on the End-Of-Life label, > > interpreting it as "software that has reached EOL shall not be used". I > > don't think that's the message we want to send about 1.28 so soon after > the > > 2.0.0 release. > > > > I like Mike's suggestion of End of Development for 1.x and I concur to > > remove the End Of Life/End Of Support words from Joe's #1 point. There > are > > hidden meanings we won't fully comprehend. I recommend not even > specifying > > a future EOL date, because nobody will be happy with 30 days from now > (too > > soon) and many will be unhappy with 12 months from now (too long to > promise > > resources to). > > > > I propose these words for Joe's #3 point on the downloads page. > > > > "Apache NiFi 1.28 will be the last minor version release in the 1.x > > baseline. For the near future, only significant bug fixes and security > > related updates will be considered for future patch releases. The Apache > > NiFi team wishes to inform the community, however, that several > > dependencies in 1.x cannot be upgraded past a certain point. These > > include, but not limited to, versions of software beyond Java 11, Jetty > 9, > > Spring 5 and AngularJS 1.8. For the most inclusive and continuing > support > > from the Apache NiFi team, we strongly encourage users to migrate to NiFi > > 2.0" > > > > -- other Mike > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:07 PM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Joe, > > > > > > I would modify the End of Life/End of Support to be End of New > Development. > > > From what I've seen over the years, End of Life/End of Support is > typically > > > used by vendors to imply a hard cut off date for free support. The way > I > > > take your proposal is that it's a message that new development and bug > > > fixes will head to 2.X, but the community will get reasonable security > > > support for a while, provided volunteers can be found to help out. It's > > > that connotation of "hard stop" with End of Lie that I think warrants > > > something like End of Active Development. > > > > > > At the end of the day, perhaps I'm overthinking this, but when I hear > "End > > > of Life," that's where my mind goes immediately. I think most people > would > > > immediately think that 1.28.1 is it, and if they can't get onto 2.X in > a > > > reasonable time, they might be taking on personal risk if an issue like > > > log4shell comes up, and their leadership finds out that they have an > > > unclear (to them) support path. It is technically clear (go to 2.X) but > > > with any big effort with a lot of stakeholders, that might not be > > > immediately viable, and I could see it quickly turn into a semantical > fight > > > over the meaning of "End of Life" for people trying to support 1.X and > make > > > the case for 2.X in that environment. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 12:10 PM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > To your first paragraph then I interpret that to read the same as my > > > > proposal intended to read. Can you please provide specific wording > > > changes > > > > in the event your proposal differs. > > > > > > > > To your second paragraph those things are prudent generally and > there is > > > > nothing new that would require that guidance at this time. > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > I wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 10:03 AM Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alright. > > > > > > > > > > I would suggest we go with the basic concept of EOL sometime this > year, > > > > but > > > > > phrase it more gently as End of Active Development with a focus on > > > 1.28.1 > > > > > and beyond being "transition support snapshots for NiFi 1.X." What > we > > > > want > > > > > to convey is "we hear you, you need time, we'll try to help smooth > this > > > > > over where we can" to enterprise users. I think a commitment to at > > > least > > > > > trying to patch CVEs where possible for up to a year, provided > there > > > are > > > > > volunteers, would be reasonable for us as an offer to meet users > > > halfway. > > > > > > > > > > My guidance as an integrator to our security team would be to begin > > > > > transitioning any instances that are public facing to be behind a > VPN > > > by > > > > > the end of 2025 Q1, as that will effectively mitigate a lot of the > > > > concerns > > > > > raised up thread about Internet-related dangers to active NiFi > > > > instances. I > > > > > would also recommend that any systems that touch the API begin > > > evaluating > > > > > application-specific firewall rules and AWS security groups to > ensure > > > > that > > > > > NiFi's REST APIs are accessible only to other applications that > have > > > been > > > > > whitelisted. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:18 AM Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > I hear you. > > > > > > > > > > > > As a PMC member please make a concrete proposal and offer wording > > > that > > > > > you > > > > > > think helps the community conduct its mission and the users > benefit > > > > from > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 9:12 AM Mike Thomsen < > mikerthom...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
