I should add to qualify: it was only a suggestion to keep a discussion on ML. If folks think it'll be more productive to talk things through, they're more than welcome to do this. I also should not have mentioned any "third-party" concerns, just mine.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, at 9:26 AM, Alex Petrov wrote: > > 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 >
