On Mon, Dec 05 2016, Ian Cordasco wrote: Hi Ian,
> In the last couple weeks we've merged and released broken code that > had an underspecified use-case ostensibly because we all want to help > each other be more productive. That said, as one of the few people who > understands the interactions between what hacking uses (since Joe > left) it seems like we're not enforcing the same level of quality for > hacking that we do for other projects. > > Because the use case is far too fuzzy, and the code broken (and the > code to fix it, further hardening our dependency on unsupported > versions of upstream dependencies) I'm strongly proposing we revert > the original change (https://review.openstack.org/407101). > > We should be working with the upstream communities (like we used to) > and providing them with clear, unambiguous, narrowly defined use cases > that will convince them of the benefits of our feature requests. It seems to me that subject of the thread is much more alarming that it have to be, no? Hacking still works perfectly, it's just a new feature that's non-working, right? Since he author itself proposed to do that for good reasons, so I'm not sure what's so wrong here. Anyway, I've +2'ed your revert since it seems to make sense. Cheers, -- Julien Danjou /* Free Software hacker https://julien.danjou.info */
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
