On 9/19/14, 9:01 AM, "Jeremy Stanley" <fu...@yuggoth.org> wrote:

>On 2014-09-18 14:35:10 +0000 (+0000), Ian Cordasco wrote:
>> Except that even OpenStack doesn’t pin requests because of how
>> extraordinarily stable our API is.
>[...]
>
>FWIW, I nearly capped it a few weeks ago with
>https://review.openstack.org/117848 but since the affected projects
>were able to rush in changes to their use of the library to work
>around the ways it was breaking I ended up abandoning that. Also for
>some months we capped requests in our global requirements because of
>https://launchpad.net/bugs/1182271 but that was finally lifted about
>a year ago with https://review.openstack.org/37461 (so I don't think
>it's entirely fair to assert that "OpenStack doesn’t pin requests
>because...extraordinarily stable").
>-- 
>Jeremy Stanley

A) Not the thread for this discussion.
B) I didn’t say that OpenStack *never* pinned it, I said it didn’t
currently
C) Did you read the whole thread? I mentioned 2.4.0 as an exception
because of ProtocolErrors and the redirect_cache members of OpenStack
lobbied for.
D) Before someone else replies, I assumed the transition from 0.x -> 1.0
was also the other obvious (and not worth mentioning) break in stability
given that since then we’ve had no API changes (with the exception of
2.4.0 not re-wrapping a single urllib3 exception).

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to