Hi, >> Actually that makes an alternative implementation more valuable. Without >> microversions those alternative implementations would have to wait a long >> time to implement fixes to the API, but now can implement and publish >> the fix as soon as the microversion lands. This means that alternative >> implementations will lag _less_ behind the primary. > > > So if our min_version is 2.1 and the max_version is 2.50. That means > alternative implementations need implement all the 50 versions api...that > sounds pain... >
Yes, it sounds unrealistic. I think that the alternative implementations will only realistically work if we had a program in OpenStack that would be responsible for creating and delivering a reference API for each type of Project (Compute, Baremetal, Identity, Telemety, etc...), we need a clear separation of the API definition level from the implementation level. That said, I'm OK changing the header to not include the project name but I don't buy the argument about it making alternative implementations easier. Cheers, Lucas __________________________________________________________________________ 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
