On 4/11/2019 3:47 PM, Lingxian Kong wrote:
>
> I've already replied in the patch, since you also mentioned the patch
> here, i think it's necessary also reply you here.
>
> That patch failed to get attention from other team members and the
> community who are not interested in such change, as the PTL, i have to
> merge it myself to not block other patches. At the same time, some users
> were complaining the current trove image build approach, which could be
> improved with that patch.
>
> If self-approved is something you disagree, I'd appreciate if you could
> offer some help for the review.

I realize Trove is in a tough spot so I'm not trying to criticize and I
understand the frustration of waiting to get something merged that you
or your customers need. I don't have great answers for these problems. I
was simply trying to highlight the fact that while that patch may be
appropriate to merge on master it may not be appropriate to merge on
stable, so there are different rules if you're following the stable
policy and that's why cores on master aren't necessarily cores on stable
branches.

At the same time I'm coming from a place where we try to enforce some
kind of standards across projects under openstack TC governance, and
trove is in a tough spot there.

But as Mohammed pointed out, if Trove elects to *not* follow the stable
policy then we simply have to remove the "stable:follows-policy" tag
from governance and trove is free to backport as it pleases (I think?
Tony can correct me).