On 05/30/2016 10:05 PM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote:
> I think it is good to share codes and a single microversion can make
> life more easier during coding.
> Can we approve those specs first and then decide on the details in IRC
> and patch review? Because
> the non-priority spec deadline is so close.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> 2016-05-29 19:25 GMT-07:00 Alex Xu <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> >
> >
> > 2016-05-20 20:05 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>:
> >>
> >> There are a number of changes up for spec reviews that add parameters
> to
> >> LIST interfaces in Newton:
> >>
> >> * keypairs-pagination (MERGED) -
> >>
> >>
> https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/8d16fc11ee6d01b5a9fe1b8b7ab7fa6dff460e2a/specs/newton/approved/keypairs-pagination.rst#L2
> >> * os-instances-actions - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240401/
> >> * hypervisors - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240401/
> >> * os-migrations - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/239869/
> >>
> >> I think that limit / marker is always a legit thing to add, and I
> almost
> >> wish we just had a single spec which is "add limit / marker to the
> >> following APIs in Newton"
> >>
> >
> > Are you looking for code sharing or one microversion? For code sharing,
> it
> > sounds ok if people have some co-work. Probably we need a common
> pagination
> > supported model_query function for all of those. For one microversion,
> i'm a
> > little hesitate, we should keep one small change, or enable all in one
> > microversion. But if we have some base code for pagination support, we
> > probably can make the pagination as default thing support for all list
> > method?
>
> It is nice to share some common code for this, that would be nice for
> writing the api doc also to know what APIs support them.
> And also nice to do it with a single microversion for the above
> resources, because we can avoid microversion bumping conflict and all
> of them don't seem a big change.
There is already common code for limit / marker.
I don't think these all need to be one microversion, they are honestly
easier to review if they are not.
However in future we should probably make 1 spec for all limit / marker
adds during a cycle. Just because the answer will be *yes* and seems
like more work to have everything be a dedicated spec.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
