On 2018-05-30 14:50:11 -0700 (-0700), Davanum Srinivas wrote: [...] > Let me poke at this a bit. Some of the projects do say (not in so > many words): > > "master should be always deployable and fully backward compatible and > so we cant let anything in anytime that could possibly regress anyone" > > Should we change that attitude too? Anyone agree? disagree?
I think this is orthogonal to the thread. The idea is that we should avoid nettling contributors over minor imperfections in their submissions (grammatical, spelling or typographical errors in code comments and documentation, mild inefficiencies in implementations, et cetera). Clearly we shouldn't merge broken features, changes which fail tests/linters, and so on. For me the rule of thumb is, "will the software be better or worse if this is merged?" It's not about perfection or imperfection, it's about incremental improvement. If a proposed change is an improvement, that's enough. If it's not perfect... well, that's just opportunity for more improvement later. -- Jeremy Stanley
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
