On 2016-04-19 16:10:12 +0100 (+0100), Chris Dent wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Jeremy Stanley wrote: [...] > > I feel like many of the people pushing this idea simply didn't > > get to experience the pain it causes the first time around and > > won't believe their peers who lived through it. > > I feel like I have to respond to this, because I'm one pushing this (at > least in this thread). I'll try not to take umbrage. [...]
Sorry, no umbrage intended! At least I said "many" and not "all." ;) > What I would like to see is that not only do packages lag master > (they already do to some extent) but that requirements > co-installability resolution also lags master. At master we should > be building the future; yes, with chaos. That chaos should be > resolved in a stabilizing process, driven by those with a need for > stability. [...] Yep, I understand the sentiment. Just remember that we _did_ already have that, and the requirements synchronization in place now grew out of the pain points from trying to force co-installability as problems arose rather than getting in front of them. It might not be as terrible the second time around since we've decoupled and modularized a lot more of OpenStack in the time since, but I don't want us to forget why we have the solutions we have and would hate to see us blow a release by having to hastily put them back into place again after thinking we could just wing it. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ 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
