o-nikolas commented on code in PR #24680: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/24680#discussion_r907899400
########## README.md: ########## @@ -410,6 +410,27 @@ For example this means that by default we upgrade the minimum version of Airflow to 2.3.0 in the first Provider's release after 11th of October 2022 (11th of October 2021 is the date when the first `PATCHLEVEL` of 2.2 (2.2.0) has been released. +Since providers are often connected with some stakeholders that are vitally interested in maintaining +their integrations (for example cloud providers, ore specific service providers), and we are also bound with +the Apache Software Foundation release policies. The provider's governance model is something we name +"mixed governance". + +The Airflow Community and release manager still decides when to release those providers. +This is fully managed by the community and the usual release-management process. + +Usually, we release only the most recent version of the provider and rather aggressively +remove deprecations in "major" versions of the providers, however the stakeholder in a given provider might +agree and make their effort on cherry-picking the non-breaking changes to a selected previous major branch +of the provider which results in releasing more (usually two) versions of such provider when we release it: +potentially breaking "latest" major version, and selected past major version with non-breaking changes +applied by the stakeholder (cherry-picked changes have to be merged by the committer following the usual Review Comment: > cherry-picked changes have to be merged by the committer following the usual rules of the community And by this you mean proposing the changes (e.g. cherry-picked changes from main) in a PR from a fork, right? ########## README.md: ########## @@ -410,6 +410,27 @@ For example this means that by default we upgrade the minimum version of Airflow to 2.3.0 in the first Provider's release after 11th of October 2022 (11th of October 2021 is the date when the first `PATCHLEVEL` of 2.2 (2.2.0) has been released. +Since providers are often connected with some stakeholders that are vitally interested in maintaining +their integrations (for example cloud providers, ore specific service providers), and we are also bound with +the Apache Software Foundation release policies. The provider's governance model is something we name +"mixed governance". + +The Airflow Community and release manager still decides when to release those providers. +This is fully managed by the community and the usual release-management process. + +Usually, we release only the most recent version of the provider and rather aggressively +remove deprecations in "major" versions of the providers, however the stakeholder in a given provider might +agree and make their effort on cherry-picking the non-breaking changes to a selected previous major branch +of the provider which results in releasing more (usually two) versions of such provider when we release it: +potentially breaking "latest" major version, and selected past major version with non-breaking changes +applied by the stakeholder (cherry-picked changes have to be merged by the committer following the usual +rules of the community). + +The community continues to release such older versions of the providers for as long as there is an effort +of the stakeholder to maintain the cherry-picked changes. The availability of the stakeholder that can +manage "service-oriented" maintenance and agrees to such a responsibility, will also drive our willingness +to accept future, new providers to become community managed. Review Comment: I think this is a very important paragraph, and if anything, should be expanded! And also made more concrete. > The community continues to release such older versions of the providers for as long as there is an effort of the stakeholder to maintain the cherry-picked changes. This leaves the door open to having some _very_ old actrive branches :grin: > The availability of the stakeholder that can manage "service-oriented" maintenance and agrees to such a responsibility, will also drive our willingness to accept future, new providers to become community **managed.** We should formalize what level of availability is required and make it concrete what such an agreement looks like. Is that a PR to a piece of code/documentation? A chain on the dev list? Something else entirely? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
