On Wed, Jan 20 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote: Hi fellows,
> Now, "stabilization Cycles" are easy to dream about but really hard to do and > enforce. Nonetheless, they are still worth a try or, at the very least, a > thought. I'll try to go through some of the issues and benefits a > stabilization > cycle could bring but bear in mind that the lists below are not exhaustive. In > fact, I'd love for other folks to chime in and help building a case in favor > or > against this. […] I don't think this is a bad idea per say – obviously, who would think it's a bad idea to fix bugs. But I'm still concerned. Isn't this in some way just a band-aid? If a project needs to spend an entire cycle (6 months) doing stabilization, this tells me that its development model and operating is having some problems. What about talking about those and trying to fix them? Maybe we should try to fix (or at least enhance) the root cause(s) rather than just the symptoms? So can someone enlighten me on why some projects need an entire cycle to work fixing bugs? :) Best, -- Julien Danjou /* Free Software hacker https://julien.danjou.info */
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
