> > Just reiterating to avoid any kind of confusion. > > My original email where I specifically said that it was a side note to a > point in Kamil's email regarding Bugs in Operator Code. That is not > related to my opinion about the need of Backport package and releasing it.
No confusion from my side. I understood it exactly this way :) > I am definitely up for releasing Backport packages soon. My point was if > there is something we know that is broken or is a BUG we should fix it, > again, I am not talking about new features or improvements. And if an > operator is not working we should definitely remove it from the next > release as there is no point of that Operator if it is not working. Absolutely agree. We are doing it continuously as well for all GCP packages. But some of the bugs are "I would like to use this and that" and it would be impossible without major rewrite (which has already been done in 2.0). In this case the solution might be very well "install the backports and use the new operator from there - but be aware it's not backwards compatible". -- Jarek Potiuk Polidea | Principal Software Engineer M: +48 660 796 129
