> If we have multiple private forks running large scale fleets w/backported
> features, having that same code on the latest GA branch doesn't unduly
> jeopardize the stability of that branch.
I don't agree with this extrapolation, and believe we have already been burnt
by it.
Having someone run something in their production does not mean it meets our GA
standard.
Even fleets of clusters within one company has a homogeneous deployment, and
often a narrow bound of permitted data models.
It certainly heaps, and can be critically unique feedback in helping us get to
GA, but it is certainly not alone universal, and that does matter for our
stable branches and the trillions of possible combinations of configurations
and data models operators can find themselves with.
I want to repeat my earlier statement: if we introduce bad bugs a long way
into a stable branch, e.g. 5.0.18; that's a really bad look for us and I fear
will burn operators bad enough that we will lose users over it.
It might be more constructive at this point to go through the examples of what
folk are now running in production in down-streams and are they initial
candidates for back-porting.
