[Buildbot-devel] database-backed status/scheduler-state project

[Ben Hearsum]

On 2009-09-08, at 2:53 PM, exarkun at twistedmatrix.com wrote:

> On 06:28 pm, bhearsum at mozilla.com wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-09-08, at 2:20 PM, Brian Warner wrote:
>>>
>>>> At least, not unless you're willing to break whatever third-party
>>>> code
>>>> is relying on the API. I would definitely want to avoid this. The
>>>> idea
>>>> of actively seeking it out is almost painful. :)
>>>
>>> We could take this road, and put a warning sticker on the db schema
>>> that
>>> says "subject to change, you take responsibility for updating  
>>> anything
>>> that you write that touches this, we will not bend over backwards to
>>> retain compatibility with your apps". Or we could take the other  
>>> one,
>>> with a granite plaque that says "we promise to never ever change  
>>> this,
>>> use it with confidence". Or something in between.
>>>
>>> I guess I'm (currently) comfortable with the warning sticker  
>>> approach,
>>> under the theory that the minority of users who need to build these
>>> sorts of tools (and are willing to get their hands dirty) will  
>>> also be
>>> willing+able to pay attention to the schema changes from one release
>>> to
>>> the next. Most users won't be aware of the db.
>>
>> I think this is totally reasonable, and to be expecting from a piece
>> of software that hasn't claimed to hit 1.0 yet. Despite being  
>> integral
>> to many, it's still Use At Your Own Risk IMHO. And as you've stated
>> below, there are comparable things that have happened elsewhere in  
>> the
>> code base. I certainly don't think the first release with this would
>> be the right time to freeze the interface.
>
> I think this is problematic for a couple reasons.
>
> First, Buildbot is always going to be Use At Your Own Risk.  Very,  
> little software is anything else, particularly software developed by  
> a loose group of individuals with no major assets to take in a  
> lawsuit. ;)
>

I disagree. The *trunk* of Buildbot will always be in an unstable  
state. I think that once we hit a certain milestone or state of things  
(1.0, perhaps) there will be a "stable" line, which receives bugfixes,  
non-API changing features, and maybe other things and at least one  
development head where new and exciting things happen.

Maybe that scenario is only living in my head but I think at some  
point Buildbot *needs* to have a stable branch to help adoption and  
let people receive necessary bugfixes without the risk of breaking  
their world. I think this is a pretty common model.