DanielLeens commented on issue #11021: URL: https://github.com/apache/seatunnel/issues/11021#issuecomment-4655019807
This is a useful roadmap coordination issue, but I think the inclusion bar for the 3.0 roadmap should stay a little stricter than \"interesting direction\". For an item to be treated as real 3.0 roadmap scope, I would expect at least these points to already be reasonably clear: 1. the problem statement is accepted and not still being reframed 2. there is a phase-1 slice small enough to review and merge incrementally 3. the compatibility impact is understood well enough that it will not force unclear API / SPI changes later 4. there is an owner, active PR path, or at least a concrete next step toward implementation Under that bar, the already-accepted items listed here make sense. For the pending ones, I would avoid putting them into the committed 3.0 scope until the first deliverable is narrowed further. STIP-27 is the clearest example. Before it is roadmap material, it still needs a much tighter MVP boundary and a clearer answer on where Arrow is allowed to change internal contracts versus where it must remain only an optional optimization layer. A practical next step for this roadmap issue may be to split items into three buckets instead of one flat list: - committed for 3.0 - stretch / experimental for 3.0 - still in design discussion, not yet roadmap-ready That would make the roadmap easier to read and would also reduce later confusion between \"accepted direction\" and \"scheduled delivery\". -- 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]
