We should put together a roadmap that shows the evolution and all presents a coherent view of all the moving parts.
-r > On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:52 AM, Markus Thömmes <markusthoem...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > this sounds a lot like the "OpenWhisk 2.0" discussion we had in an older > thread where I proposed an architectural overhaul. See this thread for > context: > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d19306dd976138a153f48d32c5a55f2853e4b8ff405fc46f7260e905@%3Cdev.openwhisk.apache.org%3E > > There have been strong opinions in the past against overhauling. > > Cheers, > Markus > > Am Do., 18. Juli 2019 um 13:42 Uhr schrieb Dominic Kim <style9...@gmail.com >> : > >> Recently I discussed the direction and a safe way to add a new component >> with Sven Lange-Last. >> Let me share the discussion results. >> More feedbacks and critique are welcomed. >> >> Since the implementation includes a breaking architectural change, it comes >> with a risk. >> It must not break any existing downstream system as well as the upstream >> pipelines. >> So all implementations should be disabled by default along with proper >> switches. >> >> The new change would require many iterations to become stable enough for a >> production system. >> It would be better to have a new separate (openwhisk) CI pipeline for the >> changes. >> All unit/system tests will only be executed on the new CI pipeline. >> >> I will defer to Sven, he may add more comments. >> >> Best regards >> Dominic >>
