On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Pramod Immaneni <pra...@datatorrent.com> > wrote: > > > I think there is a general consensus > > with 4.0, the additional concern/ask from community I believe, is because > > of the divergence as things go forward, to not burden the contributor > from > > having to submit the PR to both master and release-3 and to relax the > > restriction by allowing submissions to go into release-3 without > requiring > > they go into master. This would be different from what we do today. > > > > > It is not a "concern/ask from community". It was a demand made by an > individual. We cannot confuse a specific individual or a specific company > with "community". By looking at discussion, voting and affiliation, I would > in fact argue that it can be seen as attempt to control the project by a > vendor, that runs afoul project independence. > I can only say this, I try to look at what is said on its own merit and try not to ascribe intentions nefarious or otherwise to them, whether it is from someone from my affliation or from a different affiliation. I encourage others to do the same. If you look closely there are different positions from folks even within the affiliation/vendor that is being referred to. I myself, when the discussion started, asking for sticking with 3.x and maintaining backward compatibility initially have moved to the 4.x,release-3 approach after realizing the work to maintain compatibility is not trivial and cannot contribute to that work myself. It's no secret there is one main (if not only) vendor for apex and if there were more we might have very well seen similar concerns raised by them. It could easily be argued the other way, that it is easy to propose wholesale changes without much thought to what it would take to support existing users when there is no obligation to support them like a vendor may have. What I am suggesting does not hold the project back from moving forward to satisfy a group of community members and still tries to address their concerns. I suggest this line of argument is non-productive, if not divisive, and we don't go there. > > I don't see why changes should not be submitted to master as it is done > now. Since you already say that only a few changes would be difficult to > cherry-pick/port, such cases can be considered as exceptions. > Yes nothing would prevent contributors from submitting the changes to master simultaneously and should be encouraged. I am trying to figure out the best way to accomodate the ask where the contributors be not required to do so when they cannot or don't want to do so and to not block those contributions. I don't know if this will change the -1 votes but hoping folks can discuss this. Thanks
