> On 24 Oct 2015, at 21:25, Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com> wrote: > > >> On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka <ihrac...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>> On 16 Oct 2015, at 10:50, Takashi Yamamoto <yamam...@midokura.com> wrote: >>> >>> if i move fwaas tests from neutron to neutron-fwaas, [1] >>> is there easy way to run them together with the rest of neutron api tests >>> for gate-neutron-dsvm-api job? >> >> Before we jump in to reflect current gating status-quo, do we have a >> definite answer why we want to keep the gate coupling in place? Can’t we >> leave the fwaas api job for fwaas repo only? Do we think core is unstable >> enough to justify additional coupling? Is core bad at handling backwards >> compatibility when it comes to (re)moving code that is unneeded for the core >> repo? > > Core is absolutely dreadful at backwards compatibility (I’m talking recent > history here.) The co-gate is necessary to guard against that at the moment.
Interesting. Any details? Is it just a matter of some dumb code move/rename, or is it something really architectural, like single API manager for all services? I wonder what we may do to make the difference for eventual breakage of the tie. Should we start collecting post-mortem details on breakage cases to start understanding where we lag? Ihar
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
