Open Stack

On 02/05/13 14:57 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
>On 2013-05-02 03:19, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>Clint Byrum wrote:
>>I now think you mean the former, but in the case you mean the latter,
>>what do you think of my suggestion to only allow incremental feature
>>landing up until a given point in the release cycle (havana-2 ?) to 
>>give
>>us extra time to remove the incomplete bits before release ?
>>
>
>The removal would be all pain for almost no gain. In fact, I would 
>think that the stable maintenance team would appreciate that the code 
>is more like trunk when they have to backport patches in areas 
>adjacent to experimental code paths. The inverse is true too (if the 
>experimental bit has been made the default, then they'll have more 
>burden). But I think we can expect this to be at worst a tie in terms 
>of maintenance burden.
>

My concern is about features that, for some reason, never get fully
implemented. 

Is that something being considered here?

Wouldn't that require to remove the feature anyway? 

What's the maximum time allowed for a feature to be fully implemented
before it is removed from the tree?

If we let incomplete features to land during a release cycle, I'm +1
for removing them before the release if they haven't been fully
implemented.

I'm not fully opposed to this, although I'm not a fan of incomplete / unused features in
the tree.

Cheers,
FF

-- 
{ name: "Flavio Percoco",
   gpg: "87112EC1", 
   internal: "8261386",
   phone: "+390687502386",
   irc: ["fpercoco", "flaper87"]}