nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Taft <>
Subject Re: [discuss] proposed approach to versioning
Date Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:35:52 GMT

I like where you're going with this.  As a point for discussion, one of the
confusing issues with NIFI releases is that they are "fat" in nature.
Almost any change anywhere could cascade up the tree to justify bumping the
minor if not major version number.  With the current fat model, you
probably almost never have a patch release (unless it's a critical one-off
security related issue), since almost any number of other feature worthy
changes have been included. is designed more for libraries, not distributions with multiple
bundles.  How do you reconcile this?  Should individual components live
purely in their own release history?  Or should the NIFI release versioning
continue to capture all of the changes everywhere and risk meaningless
version history.

I think of NIFI releases more in terms of a mini-Linux distribution.  You
have, for example, Foo-Linux which bundles:  kernel-4.0.1, openssh-6.7,
httpd-2.4.12, openjdk-7u62, glibc-2.19.  What release of Foo-Linux is this
exactly?  Semantic versioning doesn't strictly help answer this problem.

I would generally think it's better to have each individual component
released with its own version history, and then have a more "loose"
versioning for the overall release bundle.  Some lessons can definitely be
learned from Linux distros, since they have the same problem (on a bigger

Likely candidates for individual release modules, would include:

Processor/Service API
User Interface / REST API
Standard Processors Nar
Standard Controller Services Nar
Other (Apache) Extension Nars

Let each of these modules run in their own version context, and then have
your packaging be more about conveying significant feature milestones.  I
somewhat like what Redhat is doing (7.1, no patch level), but it's also
possible to use keywords (98, ME, XP, 7) or time periods (2015-1).


On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Joe Witt <> wrote:

> All,
> A while back we discussed following semantic versioning and that
> seemed to be the prevailing view.
> In my view, we've not followed it as precisely as we should.  It
> communicates some important things to the community and users and
> helps keep us honest with the impact that changes (both good and bad)
> have on the community.
> To help provide some clarity and establish a basis for continual
> refinement and contribution of opinion I've started a wiki page for
> it:
> Thanks
> Joe

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message