Open Stack

On 12/16/2015 01:03 PM, Carl Baldwin wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Mike Bayer <mbayer at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Instead of just breaking the world, and burning 10s to 100 engineer
>>> hours in redo tests and investigating and addressing the break after the
>>> fact.
>
> We shouldn't let this happen in the first place.  I think this is our fault.
>
> We need to vet new package releases before they wreak havoc.  We need
> to accept new package releases by proposing a patch to update the
> version and take it through the gate.  Weren't we working on this at
> one point?  I understand if it isn't quite possible to do this yet but
> we need to be working toward this and accelerating our efforts rather
> than lashing out at package maintainers.
>
> With the scale that openstack development has grown to, we can't
> afford to let package updates do this to us.  If we have a patch to
> propose accepting new versions, we could provide feedback to package
> maintainers in a much more civilized and pleasant way.
>
>> I was hoping to get a thanks for even *testing* unreleased versions of
>> my entirely non-Openstack, upstream projects against Openstack itself.
>>   If I did *less* effort here, and just didn't bother the way 100% of all
>> other non-Openstack projects do, then I'd not have been scolded by you.
>
> Requiring any package maintainer to be on top of every consumer of his
> package doesn't scale.  We can expect that packages have good tests
> and take care to maintain quality and a stability.  But to put the
> responsibility for "100s of engineering hours" squarely on Mike's
> shoulders because he didn't "raise it up the flagpole" is
> irresponsible.  We need to take our own responsibility for the choice
> to consume the package and blindly accept updates.

++, well said, Carl.

-jay