On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes >> keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the >> cost. This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to >> something like the "v2.1" proposal. > > I think that the most we can hope for is consensus on _something_. So, > the thing that I'm hoping would mostly satisfy the largest number of > people is: > > - Leaving v2 and v3 as they are today in the tree, and with v3 still > marked experimental for the moment > - We start on a v2 proxy to v3, with the first goal of fully > implementing the v2 API on top of v3, as judged by tempest > - We define the criteria for removing the current v2 code and marking > the v3 code supported as: > - The v2 proxy passes tempest > - The v2 proxy has sign-off from some major deployers as something > they would be comfortable using in place of the existing v2 code > - The v2 proxy seems to us to be lower maintenance and otherwise > preferable to either keeping both, breaking all our users, deleting > v3 entirely, etc > - We keep this until we either come up with a proxy that works, or > decide that it's not worth the cost, etc. > > I think the list of benefits here are: > > - Gives the v3 code a chance to address some of the things we have > identified as lacking in both trees > - Gives us a chance to determine if the proxy approach is reasonable or > a nightmare > - Gives a clear go/no-go line in the sand that we can ask deployers to > critique or approve > > It doesn't address all of my concerns, but at the risk of just having > the whole community split over this discussion, I think this is probably > (hopefully?) something we can all get behind. > > Thoughts?
I think this is a good plan. Michael -- Rackspace Australia _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
