On 04/03/16 10:24 -0500, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
On Mar 4, 2016 10:16, "Monty Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:On 03/04/2016 08:37 AM, Ruby Loo wrote:Hijacked from ' [openstack-dev] [ironic] Remember to follow RFE process' thread: > Should we revert the patch [1] for now? (Disclaimer. I haven'tlooked at the> patch itself. But I don't think I should have to, to know what theAPI> change is.) > Thanks for calling it out Ruby, that's unfortunate that the patch was merged without the RFE being approved. About reverting the patch I think we shouldn't do that now because the patch is touching the API and introducing a new microversion to it. Exactly. I've -2'ed the revert, as removing API version is even worse than landing a change without an RFE approved. Let us make sure to approve RFE asap, and then adjust the code according to it. This brings up another issue, which I recall discussing before. Did we decide that we'd never revert something that touches the API/microversion? It might be good to have guidelines on this if we don't already. IF the API is incorrect? If the API could be improved? If the API was only in master for eg 48 hours?I believe you need to treat master as if it's deployed to production. So oncean API change is released, 'fixing' it needs to be done like any other API change - with a microversion bump and appropriate backwards compat.(For instance, I have a CI/CD pipeline merging from master every hour anddoing a deploy - so 48 hours is a long time ago)MontySo let me jump in here and add in that a direct revert only should happen in extreme circumstances: aka a change that breaks behavior without a micro version bump - or something that is causing a break that cannot be fixed easily rolling forward. (Unable to land code in the gate at all for example, including roll forward fixes) In general (and especially with microversions) fail and fix moving forward is much better for the end users/deployers especially since folks are doing CD more aggressively now. There are other considerations but a revert really is one of the most extreme responses and should be used sparingly.
Just want to +1 the above. Master should be considered as deployed and we shouldn't assume things. So, I'd advice a proper fix that is also backwards compatible. *cough* Doing a change on the API and then a revert feels like releasing on pypi and then deleting the release. *cough* Cheers, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
