> So whilst we still have extensions (and that's a separate debate) we > need versioning on a per extension basis. Otherwise people are forced > to upgrade their extensions in lockstep with each other.
I think that some people would argue that requiring the extensions to go together linearly is a good thing, from the point of view of a consistent API. I'm not sure how I feel about that, actually, but I think that's a different discussion. However, what I think I really want, which I mentioned in IRC after I sent this was: using something like servers:version=2. That could be namespaced by extension, or we could define boxes of functionality that go together, like core:version=1, volume-stuff:version=1, etc. --Dan _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
