Ooh, I love feature flags. I don’t know enough details to say whether an incremental refactoring like that would work here, but it’s usually a better idea than a full rewrite.
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 08:07, Rodric Rabbah <rod...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
