potiuk commented on code in PR #24680:
URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/24680#discussion_r907964660
##########
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:
> Not sure what message you want to convey here. Is this paragraph necessary?
This is all about managing the expectations of the users. What we are
writing here as a policy is a policy that our users will be able (and they will
do it) to call us upon. This happened multiple times ("but you wrote here that
you are doing it"). The message was that the users should not *expect* older
versions to be released - if there is no-one to cherry-pick them we (as
maintainers) will not be expected to release the older versions. I updated it
slighttly
> I think this is a very important paragraph, and if anything, should be
expanded! And also made more concrete.
I did.
> This leaves the door open to having some very old actrive branches grin
True. But I added "to perform the cherry-picks and carry-on testing of the
older provider version." - the testing part will limit it significantly. I also
changed in the previous paragrapsh "usually two version" to "maximum two
versions". That should help.
> 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?
I think there wil never be formal agreement - this will always be slightly
"vague" statement. Driving willingess is gooo enough IMHO as an indication that
there is a relation between the availabilihty and likelihood of being accepted.
From the community side - everything in the ASF and "Apache Way" it's all
driven by consensus - if we cannot achieve, we vote. From the "stakeholder"
point of view - this is "well, when I contribute and want to release older
versions, I or others will have to commit to cherry-pick to and test the older
versions. This is the "responsibility" I am committing to.
--
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]
