On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>wrote:
> > > On 2/21/2014 1:53 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > >> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 06:53:11 +0000 >> Kenichi Oomichi <oomi...@mxs.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Christopher Yeoh [mailto:cbky...@gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:44 AM >>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] v3 API in Icehouse >>>> >>>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:36:46 -0500 >>>> Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>>> >>>>> The v3 API effort has been going for a few release cycles now. >>>>> As we approach the Icehouse release, we are faced with the >>>>> following question: "Is it time to mark v3 stable?" >>>>> >>>>> My opinion is that I think we need to leave v3 marked as >>>>> experimental for Icehouse. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Although I'm very eager to get the V3 API released, I do agree with >>>> you. As you have said we will be living with both the V2 and V3 >>>> APIs for a very long time. And at this point there would be simply >>>> too many last minute changes to the V3 API for us to be confident >>>> that we have it right "enough" to release as a stable API. >>>> >>> >>> Through v3 API development, we have found a lot of the existing v2 API >>> input validation problems. but we have concentrated v3 API development >>> without fixing the problems of v2 API. >>> >>> After Icehouse release, v2 API would be still CURRENT and v3 API would >>> be EXPERIMENTAL. So should we fix v2 API problems also in the >>> remaining Icehouse cycle? >>> >>> >> So bug fixes are certainly fine with the usual caveats around backwards >> compatibility (I think there's a few in there that aren't >> backwards compatible especially those that fall into the category of >> making the API more consistent). >> >> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines >> >> Chris >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > We also need to circle back to the issues/debates around what to do with > the related bug(s) and how to handle something like this in V2 now with > respect to proxying to neutron (granted that my premise in the last comment > may be off a bit now): > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43822/ > > So this is something that sort of sits between a bug and a feature improvement. Like other parts of the V2 API its an area that wasn't upgraded when neutron support was added. And in other cases new features were added with only nova-network support. Chris
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
