This is my response to ongoing discussion at https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/6178 https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/6178 because g

This is my response to ongoing discussion at https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/6178 https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues/6178 because github issues is truly the wrong place for doing this. >> @hagen1778 My comment at #5706 (comment) goes into this a bit more. It can indeed be helpful to cross-link to other products/projects at times, and I don't see this individual comment as a big problem - but it fits into an overall pattern that is less ok (see details in my linked comment). @juliusv I am familiar with the comment you linked. I am also sharing your opinion about being `a bit more sensitive about using Prometheus channels`. However, I find it a bit unfair comparing to other OSS mentions in Prometheus issues. Anyone can verify this easily by searching for `thanos`, `cortex` or `victoriametrics` on https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/issues I disagree with second point about `own implementation of PromQL`. The reason why it was re-implemented(AFAIK) with so much efforts instead of just reusing the existing Prometheus code is the unwillingness to extend existing implementation. I'm pretty sure you are familiar with that, because this discussion appeared in your own proposal ticket from Jun 25. And I understand this, authors should protect their projects from being overwhelmed by other people proposals and needs to keep it solid. But I don't understand why it is not allowed to mention the alternative way for users on public platforms like github. I am very grateful for Prometheus and the ecosystem around it and strongly believe it becomes a standard for the industry, so we all should work on it. That's why such confrontations make me sad. I hope that such situations will never occur in future and opensource will remain the place for creating cool software.