Stephen, a lot depends on your plans in terms of breaking functionality. For example, one of the reasons Sentry HA was developed on a feature branch was because it was a serious change in architecture and in broke functionality for a while. I think some of the merge problems which Sergio referred to were caused by poor planning and communication - I think we are in much better shape now.
One thing I would be concerned (in case you do your development in master branch) is that we end up shipping a release with half-baked feature where there is a bunch of things that are there for the future but not really used. If you think this isn't a really a problem, developing on master is fine since it will automatically handle any potential conflicts with fine-grained privileges changes. Alex On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Stephen Moist <mo...@cloudera.com> wrote: > Hey all, what does the current roadmap and release schedule look like for > FGP and ABAC? I’ve been told that FGP is going out in the next release, > ABAC is more slated for the summer. How do we want to handle simultaneous > development of these features? For ABAC, our dev process is more agile. > So while we have a working version of ABAC right now in review, it’s not > the final solution. We plan to iterate, improve, fix and add features to > it over the next few months. I had talked with Kalyan and Sergio offline > once, they don’t like large patches and recommended not using a feature > branch. I don’t see an issue with continuing to develop ABAC and FGP at > the same time and committing both to master. We’ll add a switch in ABAC to > turn the feature off for now through the next release. What does the > community think about supporting development of two different features at > once?
