On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Flavio Percoco <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/12/13 09:06 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> On 12/02/2013 08:53 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> So, to clarify, possible flows would be: >> >> 1) An API moving to a library as-is, like rootwrap >> >> Status: Maintained >> -> Status: Graduating (short term) >> -> Code removed from oslo-incubator once library is released >> > > We should make the module print a deprecation warning which would be > more like a 'transition' warning. So that people know the module is > being moved to it's own package. I thought about that, too. We could do it, but it feels like code churn. I would rather spend the effort on updating projects to have the libraries adopted. > > > >> 2) An API being replaced with a better one, like rpc being replaced by >> oslo.messaging >> >> Status: Maintained >> -> Status: Obsolete (once an RC of a replacement lib has been released) >> -> Code removed from oslo-incubator once all integrated projects have >> been migrated off of the obsolete code >> > > We've a deprecated package in oslo-incubator. It may complicate things > a bit but, moving obsolete packages there may make sense. I'd also > update the module - or package - and make it print a deprecation > warning. The deprecated package is for modules we are no longer maintaining but for which there is not a direct replacement. Right now that only applies to the wsgi module, since Pecan isn't an Oslo library. Doug > > > FF > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > _______________________________________________ > 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
