[openstack-dev] [Ironic] maintaining backwards compatibility within a cycle

Ruby Loo rlooyahoo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 20 15:38:01 UTC 2014

Hi, we had an interesting discussion on IRC about whether or not we should
be maintaining backwards compatibility within a release cycle. In this
particular case, we introduced a new decorator in this kilo cycle, and were
discussing the renaming of it, and whether it needed to be backwards
compatible to not break any out-of-tree driver using master.

Some of us (ok, me or I) think it doesn't make sense to make sure that
everything we do is backwards compatible. Others disagree and think we
should, or at least strive for 'must be' backwards compatible with the
caveat that there will be cases where this isn't
feasible/possible/whatever. (I hope I captured that correctly.)

Although I can see the merit (well, sort of) of trying our best, trying
doesn't mean 'must', and if it is 'must', who decides what can be exempted
from this, and how will we communicate what is exempted, etc?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141120/371d3bad/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list