On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, here's the issue with "simple move from private repo". This is a > huge chunk of code. And while employees of Gridgain are quite familiar > with it (or so I presume), the rest of the community is not. I, for > one, don't consider that the fact it has been tested and integrated > with AI 2.0 and, effectively, outside of AI 2.0 is a reasonable "go" > criteria.
Cos is absolutely correct here. Strong +1 to the above. > I am sorry that I have to repeat this after 1.5 years after project's > graduation from the Incubator. However, I, personally and otherwise, > feel like a community process of creating software should be thought > through in the spirit of the community, rather than "release dates" or > "feature richness". Which means that the community has to be on board > with the decisions like this. And "on board" doesn't mean "majority of > the votes" as we, fortunately, aren't playing in democracy @apache. > Release dates are relevant to an entity, building and selling > products. in Apache we're are working on projects, and while releases > are important here, they convey a very different meaning. Which brings me to a related question: what exactly needs to be released on this aggressive schedule and who is a beneficiary of this release? What I am trying to say is this: if GirdGain has a product delivery deadline -- the company can go ahead and release its product with whatever features it needs to. But I'm with Cos -- the community has to be given time to get comfortable with the code base if for nothing else but for licensing implications. Thanks, Roman.
