To play devils advocate and as someone that has had to git bisect an ugly regression once I still think its important not to break trunk. It can be much harder to deal with difficult issues like that if trunk frequently breaks.
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Sean McGinnis [sean.mcgin...@gmx.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:01 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][all] A culture change (nitpicking) > "master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and > so we cant let anything in anytime that could possibly regress anyone" > > Should we change that attitude too? Anyone agree? disagree? > > Thanks, > Dims > I'll definitely jump at this one. I've always thought (and shared on the ML several times now) that our implied but not explicit support for CD from any random commit was a bad thing. While I think it's good to support the idea that master is always deployable, I do not think it is a good mindset to think that every commit is a "release" and therefore should be supported until the end of time. We have a coordinated release for a reason, and I think design decisions and fixes should be based on the assumption that a release is a release and the point at which we need to be cognizant and caring about keeping backward compatibility. Doing that for every single commit is not ideal for the overall health of the product, IMO. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
