Agree with that. I don't like to have master with a partial functionality. But we're going to work on have the full functionality before releasing 2.1 to avoid that.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Alexander Kolbasov <ak...@cloudera.com> wrote: > My major concern is having master branch in an inconsistent state where > some parts are there but some parts are not. I guess as long as new changes > do not break any existing functionality, working on master branch should be > ok, but otherwise I would be worried. > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Sergio Pena <sergio.p...@cloudera.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > >
