it is! and “we have no plans to break compatibility” needs to be called out as bullshit every time it’s brought up, because it is a tactic. in the best case it’s a verbal game — they have no plans to maintain compatibility either, so they can pretend these unnecessary breakages are accidental.
I can’t say I see the outcome in the GitHub issue as a positive thing. both redis and the project maintainers have done a sudden 180 in terms of their attitude, and the original proposal is now being denied as a misunderstanding (which it absolutely wasn’t) now that it proved to be unpopular. my guess (from previous experience and the dire warnings in that issue) is that redis is going to attempt the following:
- take over the project’s governance quietly via proxies
- once that’s done, engage in a policy where changes that break compatibility with valkey and other redis-likes are approved and PRs to fix compatibility are de-prioritized or rejected outright
if this is the case, it’s a much worse situation than them forking the project — this gets them the outcome they wanted, but curtails the community’s ability to respond to what will happen until it’s far too late.
to be honest, they give me a lot of mtgox vibes: