On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:31 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these > types of discussions wouldn't occur. Right?
You're assuming the Nova objects API is at a point where the maintainers of it feel ready to commit to API stability. Mark. > On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote: > > > >> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo. > > > >It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of > >oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make > >a commitment to API stability. > > > >It's often easier to start a new API completely standalone, push it to > >PyPI and plan for API backwards compatibility from the start. No-one has > >ever said that such APIs need to go through oslo-incubator "for process > >sake". > > > >Mark. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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
