Replies: 2 comments
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you so much for your thoughtful and seemingly important post! I'm quite new to langflow (though I'm not that new with my 66 years) coming back to programming after some decades of doing other things. That said: It would be such a shame to see LangFlow decline due to some mistakes that could be avoided. Stefan |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hello, Langflow team and community.
I am a longtime supporter and contributor from the South Korean community who has actively promoted Langflow for years.
I have introduced this tool to countless Korean users through YouTube and other channels, highlighting its potential and advantages.
However, the recent situation has become deeply concerning
In the Langflow Desktop Windows version, all components containing the refresh button are currently non-functional.
This problem was discovered only after I had promoted this version to 40,000 Korean users on my YouTube channel.
I was forced to create and distribute my own unofficial workaround, without any official support or documentation from the team.
This is more than just a technical bug — it is a direct blow to user trust.
Even as someone who has promoted this product, I now find myself in the contradictory position of “promoting a solution with broken functionality.”
For years, I have contributed not only as a user but as someone dedicated to improving Langflow.
Recently, however, the environment has become one where I hesitate to even submit a Pull Request.
The likelihood of a PR being merged is uncertain, and the review cycle is irregular.
Feature requests often go unanswered for extended periods, with GitHub issues seeing more responses from the community than from the official team.
There is effectively no process for gathering community feedback, and the product’s direction is decided solely from within the team.
This resembles the closed, top-down repository management style of companies like IBM.
Announcements are actively posted on Discord every few days, promoting Langflow.
Yet some of these announcements highlight versions with features that are not functioning properly.
The impression is that marketing and promotion are prioritized over fixing existing problems.
To build and maintain trust, ensuring that existing features work reliably must take precedence over announcing new ones.
Once trust is lost, contributors decline, which in turn leads to further quality degradation.
This risk is particularly high in the Korean community, where information spreads quickly.
A single breach of trust can result in widespread disengagement across the entire ecosystem.
I strongly urge the following improvements:
Immediate official communication when a critical issue arises, along with documented temporary workarounds.
Transparent PR review processes
Introduction of community surveys and an RFC process before major feature changes or directional shifts.
On behalf of the Korean community, I am prepared to provide reproduction steps, test cases, and realworld user scenarios, as well as organize a dedicated Windows QA volunteer group.
This is not about criticism for its own sake.
It is a call for Langflow to once again become a trusted open-source project.
The community is not an adversary it is your strongest ally.
Now is the time to focus on working fundamentals and transparent governance, so we can together create a Langflow that all of us can be proud of.
Thank you.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions