On 03/26/2014 06:30 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Russell Bryant wrote: >> [...] >> First, it seems there isn't a common use of "deprecated". To me, >> marking something deprecated means that the deprecated feature: >> >> - has been completely replaced by something else >> >> - end users / deployers should take action to migrate to the >> new thing immediately. >> >> - The project has provided a documented migration path >> >> - the old thing will be removed at a specific date/release > > Agreed, IMHO we need to reserve the use the "deprecated" terminology for > the idea of moving end users, deployers, external client library > developers (people outside of OpenStack direct reach) off a given API > version. Deprecation is about giving them a fair heads-up about > something that is about to be removed, so that they are encouraged to > move off it. It needs to be discussed and announced with the user > community, and come with a precise plan. > > Internal consumption of APIs between OpenStack projects is a different > beast: (1) it's under our control and (2) we really can't remove an API > until all our internal pieces have migrated off it. > > So I wouldn't use "deprecation warnings" to encourage other OpenStack > projects to move off an API. They can't come with a precise date since > if projects don't comply with this "suggestion" we just can't remove > that API support. I would therefore go this way: > > 1. API vN is stable and supported > 2. API vN+1 is being developed and experimental > 3. API vN+1 is marked stable and supported > 4. Engage with other consuming OpenStack projects to migrate to vN+1 > 5. Migration is completed > 6. Deprecation plan (and removal date) is discussed with stakeholders > 7. Deprecation plan (and removal date) is decided and announced > 8. Deprecation messages are added to code for API vN users > 9. At removal date, API vN is removed > > Keystone is at step 4. It shouldn't use "deprecation" terminology before > step 6. > > If step 4 is blocked, project should first raise the issue at > cross-project meetings, and if all else fails at the TC level. >
I think you did a very nice job of capturing the ideal steps here. Totally agreed. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
