[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas




----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Pevec" <apevec redhat com>
> To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets hotmail com>
> Cc: "rdo-list" <rdo-list redhat com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 5:13:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas
> 
> > I hardly understand why working features should be dropped due to not
> > passing through CI.
> 
> If it is not tested, it doesn't work, by definition.

Well, it has been constantly manually tested and most use cases work.
If a feature of a piece of software is difficult to being automatically tested 
should it be dropped? 
I think this is a bit extreme, the features that can't or won't be tested can 
be flagged as "unstable" or "experimental" but not just dropped.

> We want to ensure, with resources available, that Packstack works well
> in the future for the use-case it was designed for, proof-of-concept
> installations.

We all want that and i've noticed that people does multinode PoC installations


Cheers,
Ivan


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]