> I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only > experimental feature(s).
+1, I'm totally agree with you - it makes no sense to count experimental bugs as HCF criteria. > Any objections / other ideas? I think it would be great for customers if we point somewhere about knowing issues in those experimental features. IMHO, it should help them to understand what's wrong in case of errors and may prevent bug duplication in LP. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Mike Scherbakov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > what about using "experimental" tag for experimental features? > > After we implemented feature groups [1], we can divide our features and for > complex features, or those which don't get enough QA resources in the dev > cycle, we can declare as experimental. It would mean that those are not > production ready features. > Giving them live still in experimental mode allows early adopters to give a > try and bring a feedback to the development team. > > I think we should not count bugs for HCF criteria if they affect only > experimental feature(s). At the moment, we have Zabbix as experimental > feature, and Patching of OpenStack [2] is under consideration: if today QA > doesn't approve it to be as ready for production use, we have no other > choice. All deadlines passed, and we need to get 5.1 finally out. > > Any objections / other ideas? > > [1] > https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-specs/blob/master/specs/5.1/feature-groups.rst > [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/patch-openstack > -- > Mike Scherbakov > #mihgen > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
