> -----Original Message----- > From: Xu, Hejie [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 3:34 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for api bug > fix or not? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jens Rosenboom [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 2:17 PM > > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for > > api bug fix or not? > > > > 2015-06-01 13:40 GMT+02:00 John Garbutt <[email protected]>: > > > On 31 May 2015 at 14:15, Xu, Hejie <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Replied in line with prefix [alex] > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > ... > > >> 2) > > >> We also agreed that all micro version bumps need a spec, to help > > >> avoid is > > adding more "bad" things to the API as we try and move forward. > > >> This is heavy weight. In time, we might find certain "good" > > >> patterns where > > we want to relax that restriction, but we haven't done enough changes > > to agree on those patterns yet. This will mean we are moving a bit > > slower at first, but it feels like the right trade off against > > releasing (i.e. something that lands in any commit on master) an API > > with a massive bug we have to support for a long time. > > >> > > >> [alex]: For this case, do we need register a blueprint for it? > > >> Maybe we just > > reference the bug in the nova-spec is enough. > > > > > > Right now, we have said everything needs a spec. They can be a very, > > > very, short spec. > > > > > > It might become clear there are some places we should skip this, as > > > clear patterns emerge. > > > But as we consider every commit a "release", this is very dangerous, > > > hence the caution we are applying here. > > > > So I have now submitted a spec proposal at > > https://review.openstack.org/187835 and added the microversion to > > https://review.openstack.org/179569. > > > > I'm wondering though whether the current API behaviour here should be > > changed more generally. Is there a plausible reason to silently > > discard options that are not allowed for non-admins? For me it would > > make more sense to return an error in that case. > > Most of web server ignore the extra query string. If this isn't enable for > current > user, then it is non-exist for current user. Does make sense? This should be > something we doc in the api-wg guideline.
Just send out https://review.openstack.org/187903 > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > __________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: > > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > ________________________________________________________________ > __________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
