On 8 March 2015 at 13:12, Devananda van der Veen <devananda....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > Recently, I've been thinking more of how users of our python client > will interact with the service, and in particular, how they might > expect different instances of Ironic to behave. > > We added several extensions to the API this cycle, and along with > that, also landed microversion support (I'll say more on that in > another thread). However, I don't feel like we've collectively given > nearly enough thought to the python client. It seems to work well > enough for our CI testing, but is that really enough? What about user > experience? > > In my own testing of the client versioning patch that landed on > Friday, I noticed some pretty appalling errors (some unrelated to that > patch) when pointing the current client at a server running the > stable/juno code... > > http://paste.openstack.org/show/u91DtCf0fwRyv0auQWpx/ > > > I haven't filed specific bugs from yet this because I think the issue > is large enough that we should talk about a plan first. I think that > starts by agreeing on who the intended audience is and what level of > forward-and-backward compatibility we are going to commit to [*], > documenting that agreement, and then come up with a plan to deliver > that during the L cycle. I'd like to start the discussion now, so I > have put it on the agenda for Monday, but I also expect it will be a > topic at the Vancouver summit.
Since there was no debate on the compat thing, I've thrown up an etherpad to start the discussion. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ironic-client-ux -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev