> I suggest we organize a call to discuss this. It might help with questions > that everybody has. We can then bring it back to the dev list.
I think we should keep this discussion on the mailing list for visibility, even if the only reason is that organizing a meeting friendly to all timezones is rather difficult. I already heard concerns from multiple folks expressing an opinion that backport branch was all but decided in some meeting between interested parties, even if the result of this conversation was brought back to the mailing list. > Could you elaborate on what makes you say that there is suggestion of a > consensus? I also had an impression of implication of consensus. I do not want to quote specifics to avoid lengthy discussion about this, but I'd like to reassure that Scott isn't the only one thinking this way. > Is there any other cost related to retiring this pilot that you think I > haven't accounted for? There is a potential for lasting (even if reversible) damage to the community coming from disincentivizing folks from targeting trunk. I'll add that I strongly agree with what Stefan says: > I also think that cooperation in the broader community on your patch (or > patches of others) is better. This keeps focus on the community, and incentives engagement for a common goal, driving all of us forward, rather than spreading efforts in multiple directions. I'll re-iterate that "do everything that we can to be ready to deploy trunk" should remain our common goal. On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, at 7:09 AM, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 5:49 PM Jon Haddad <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’m opposed to teams solving their technical debt issues by pushing more >> responsibility onto the project. > > There are no teams here. There is just the project and contributors. Official > backports are not a new or novel concept in open source projects. Whatever is > being discussed here needs to be sustainably supported by the project in the > longterm. > > We have volunteers who are willing to participate in backporting some > features. The project needs to create a path forward for them to contribute. > The concerns around sustainability, testing, support are valid and there are > suggestions to mitigate those concerns. Assuming all goes well with the > pilot, it will help grow the project. If it doesn't go well, it's not a big > deal. This is not an irreversible decision – hence the suggestion for a > limited time pilot. > > Given that there has been a lot of interest in this conversation, I suggest > we organize a call to discuss this. It might help with questions that > everybody has. We can then bring it back to the dev list. > > Thoughts? > > Dinesh
