The plan I prefer is to commit patches on the master branch and not a feature branch. This is to avoid the issues we had with Sentry HA and syncs with master. I've worked in a feature branch in the past, and we had several merge commits on the feature branch just to keep it in sync with master. Some people then like to merge the feature branch into master as a one single commit which I don't like to have.
Being finer grained privileges and owner privileges the only important feature that will be available in Sentry 2.1, I think it makes sense to continue with that path unless there are other features planned for 2.1 and we cannot guarantee to have FGP ready by 2.1? On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> wrote: > There is one thing I'd like to clarify. What is the plan for all the work > around introducing fine-grained permissions managed by Sentry - do you > intend to do the work in a feature branch and merge the whole thing when it > is ready - similar to the way Sentry HA was done or you intend to directly > work in master instead? I think this warrants an explicit discussion. > > - Alex >
