KFW releases off the trunk will become harder as 1.7 features start getting used

[Kevin Koch]

Jeff --

Considering the later discussion of NIM2 being independent of the Kerberos
1.7 libraries, is 1.7 a non-issue for NIM2?

Thanks.

Kevin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kfwdev-bounces at MIT.EDU [mailto:kfwdev-bounces at MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of
> Sam Hartman
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 5:43 PM
> To: kfwdev at mit.edu
> Subject: KFW releases off the trunk will become harder as 1.7 features
> startgetting used
>
> One long-running aspect of our release process is that the trunk is
> allowed to take advantage of features on the trunk.  In particular
> this means things like as we get new implementations of CCAPI, KIM and
> other APIs available, we'll want to start using them.  And we don't
> generally support backward compatibility for this sort of change.
>
> One consequence of this is that we may start running into cases where
> specific changes to KFW will end up depending on the 1.7 release or
> at least the 1.7 release branch.  I'd expect to get to a point in a
> few months where any significant changes to KFW would depend on 1.7.
>
> We've been traditionally very reluctant to pull significant features
> for future releases back to old release branches.  I'd expect Tom to
> continue that practice.  We may develop more well defined guidelines
> for when pull-ups are appropriate, but I would expect anything we came
> to consensus on to be relatively conservative in this regard.
>
> There may be projects that we want to consider and try and avoid
> blocking behind 1.7.  I think that quite soon, we're going to want to
> establish a deadline for any such project to be proposed and for us to
> at least have the community discussion about whether we want to avoid
> blocking the projects behind 1.7.
>
> Kevin, I'd appreciate it if you could work with Jeff and anyone else
> who has an opinion and decide on a deadline by which projects that
> want to avoid being blocked behind 1.7 must be proposed.
>
> I think that shorter than two weeks from today would be unrealistic.
> I think that a deadline beyond Jan 15 would probably be too long.
>
>
> One specific concern I have is the NIM 2.0 work.  There was a project
> proposal over the summer for the user experience.  However there
> hasn't been any proposals made regarding technical impact or how the
> user experience would be accomplished.
>
> That's fine, but until such proposals are reviewed, we as a group
> won't be in a position to avoid taking NIM 2.0 design into account and
> avoid making things harder for NIM 2.0.
>
> Thanks for your consideration
>
> --Sam
...