> On 24 Oct 2025, at 11:44, Jeff Jirsa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There’s dozens of voices of dissent at varying levels of intensity
Agree with Jeff here.
I have not seen any hint or pretension of a consensus in either thread. It's
appreciated that a certain level of energy and progression in a discussion can
be conflated with consensus and seen as exclusive behaviour (everyone should be
conscious and proactive against that).
What I have seen is folk bringing forward an idea that addresses real problems,
that is reversible in a pilot, a way to grow the dev community, and a typical
thing to do in open source projects.
IMHO, it has been by-and-large brought forward and carried out in an
open-minded and explorative manner.
Just because you disagree please don't try to shut down the discussion– please
be more generous to the exploration.
For example, take this spin-off thread where Josh has tried to take a step back
and further explore the problem statement, but still this thread gets hit with
repeated objections from the original thread– that's not very engaging or
trusting of others' intent.
Scott, you make a statement that I both disagree with and feel might be
critical to moving the discussion forward (or at least putting aside concerns
to the original thread and allowing us to continue this one in better faith).
> There is a path forward for such backports to be contributed today, and it’s
> pretty well established.
I find that statement risks polarises the discussion– if, like me, you can't
see that practice alone addressing all the problems being raised in both
threads. I really do not wish to see certain features back ported into our
stable GA branches.
Having said that, it is an entirely legitimate practice that solves many back
port possibilities, and if we do agree that the current need for a back port
branch remains only runtime jdk21 and cep-37, and we agree both can comfortably
fit in that existing practice, then there is no need today for a back port
branch and we can and should leave the discussion of creating such a back port
branch open and ongoing, without urgency.
In this thread: that I hope we can seperate as it was intended; we should
continue to seek input from those running forks, to better understand them and
see what we could and might do to help them. Josh also raised solid
suggestions that had nothing to do with introducing a back port branch, let's
not hijack that please.
