On 6 March 2014 13:18, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
On 5 March 2014 03:44, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
But this plan is certainly something I'm happy to support.
One extra thing we need to
On 5 March 2014 03:44, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
But this plan is certainly something I'm happy to support.
+1
On 5 March 2014 03:44, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
So I think this a good compromise to keep things moving. Some aspects
that we'll need to consider:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/05/2014 04:52 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
On Mar 5, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
I think SDK support is critical for the success of v3 long term. I
expect most people are using the
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Garbutt j...@johngarbutt.com wrote:
On 5 March 2014 03:44, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
But this plan is certainly something I'm happy to support.
One extra thing we need to consider, how to deal with new APIs while
we go through this
On 03/06/2014 08:18 AM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
As an aside, I think we need to improve the process we use for API
related features. Because a lot of the
problems that get picked up during code review could have been avoided
if we had a better review
earlier on that just focussed on the API
On 03/04/2014 10:44 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 16:09:21 -0800
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that
includes keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of
minimizing the cost. This should include a path
I like this plan as it addresses my primary concern of getting deployments
comfortable with the transition.
We don't mention SDKs in the plan. It seems like getting at least one SDK
to use v3 would provide us additional data in the transition. There is
clear risk associated with that, but it
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 05:43 +, Kenichi Oomichi wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:09 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal
On 03/05/2014 08:52 AM, Christopher Lefelhocz wrote:
I like this plan as it addresses my primary concern of getting deployments
comfortable with the transition.
We don't mention SDKs in the plan. It seems like getting at least one SDK
to use v3 would provide us additional data in the
On Mar 5, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
I think SDK support is critical for the success of v3 long term. I
expect most people are using the APIs through one of the major SDKs, so
v3 won't take off until that happens. I think our top priority in Nova
to help
-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:52 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 05:43 +, Kenichi Oomichi wrote
So this thread is getting deep again, as I expect they all will, so I'm
just going to top post and take the ire for doing so.
I also want to summarize what I've seen in the threads so far:
v2 needed forever - if I do a sentiment analysis here looking at the
orgs people are coming from, most of
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:49:03AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
So this thread is getting deep again, as I expect they all will, so I'm
just going to top post and take the ire for doing so.
I also want to summarize what I've seen in the threads so far:
v2 needed forever - if I do a sentiment
On 03/04/2014 08:14 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:49:03AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
So this thread is getting deep again, as I expect they all will, so I'm
just going to top post and take the ire for doing so.
I also want to summarize what I've seen in the threads so
+1 on the v2 on v3 proxy idea. Since none of other suggestions lead to easy
decision, we might pay more attention here, especially when there are surely
stackers, including myself, willing to provide solid contribution to it.
Further and detailed discussion on technical feasibility, work
On 03/03/2014 06:32 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we should
change course and focus on evolving the existing v2 API instead of
putting out a new major revision. This
On 03/03/2014 12:32 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently.
snip :-)
Since this proposal was posted, it is clear that there is not much
support for it, much less consensus. That's progress because it now
seems clear to me
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/03/2014 12:32 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently.
snip :-)
Since this proposal was posted, it is clear that there is not much
support
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Thank you all for your participation on this topic. It has been quite
controversial, but the API we expose to our users is a really big deal.
I'm feeling more and more confident that we're coming through this with
a much
On 03/04/2014 12:26 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Thank you all for your participation on this topic. It has been quite
controversial, but the API we expose to our users is a really big deal.
I'm feeling more and more
On 03/04/2014 12:42 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/04/2014 12:26 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com
wrote:
Thank you all for your participation on this topic. It has
been quite controversial, but the API we expose to our users is
a
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:14:01 +
Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 07:49:03AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
So this thread is getting deep again, as I expect they all will, so
I'm just going to top post and take the ire for doing so.
I also want to
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:26:18 -0800
Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mar 4, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Thank you all for your participation on this topic. It has been
quite controversial, but the API we expose to our users is a really
What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes
keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the
cost. This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to
something like the v2.1 proposal.
I think that the most we can hope for is
On March 4, 2014 at 16:13:45, Dan Smith (d...@danplanet.com) wrote:
What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes
keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the
cost. This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to
something like
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:29:27 -0600
Anne Gentle a...@openstack.org wrote:
I still sense that the struggle with Compute v3 is the lack of
documentation for contributor developers but also especially end
users so that we could get feedback early and often.
My original understanding, passed by
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes
keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the
cost. This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to
something like
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 12:10:15 -0500
Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes
keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the
cost. This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 16:09:21 -0800
Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that
includes keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of
minimizing the cost. This should include a path away from the dual
code bases and to
-Original Message-
From: Dan Smith [mailto:d...@danplanet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:09 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
What I'd like to do next is work
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we should
change course and focus on evolving the existing v2 API instead of
putting out
On 03/03/2014 01:27 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
1) What about tasks?
In some cases, the proposed integration of tasks is backwards
compatible. A task ID will be added to a header. The biggest point of
debate was if and how
On 03/03/14 at 10:27am, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we should
change course and focus on evolving
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/03/2014 01:27 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
1) What about tasks?
In some cases, the proposed integration of tasks is backwards
compatible. A task
-1 from me. Sounds like a way to avoid badly needed change and
innovation in the API. When, for example, would we be able to propose a
patch that removed API extensions entirely?
The inconsistent naming, capitalization, numerous worthless or pointless
API extensions, ability to do similar or
On 03/03/2014 02:59 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
-1 from me. Sounds like a way to avoid badly needed change and
innovation in the API. When, for example, would we be able to propose a
patch that removed API extensions entirely?
v3 didn't address this at all, anyway. I'm not even sure there's
This seems like a reasonable and well thought out approach but It feels
like we are removing our ability to innovate. I know we are worried about
maintaining multiple APIs, but I’m still leaning towards putting the v3
API out and just keeping v2 around for a long time. Yes, its a maintenance
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:32:04 -0500
Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
The v3 API effort has produced a lot of excellent work. However, the
majority opinion seems to be that we should avoid the cost of
maintaining two APIs if at all possible. We should apply what has
been learned to
I think its also pretty unfair on the people who put a lot of work
into the v3 API. We're seriously going to delete their code after they
put a year into it?
To me OpenStack isn't just the users, its also the development
community. I think we do measurable harm to that development community
by
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 15:24 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/03/2014 02:59 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
-1 from me. Sounds like a way to avoid badly needed change and
innovation in the API. When, for example, would we be able to propose a
patch that removed API extensions entirely?
v3 didn't
On 03/03/2014 04:25 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
This seems like a reasonable and well thought out approach but It
feels like we are removing our ability to innovate.
I think part of this exercise is trying to think through what freedom
we *would* have to innovate in v2 with a set of changes
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we should
change course and focus on evolving the existing v2 API instead of
putting out
On 3/3/2014 12:27 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we should
change course and focus on evolving
On 03/03/14 at 04:48pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 15:24 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/03/2014 02:59 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
-1 from me. Sounds like a way to avoid badly needed change and
innovation in the API. When, for example, would we be able to propose a
patch that removed
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:56 -0500, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 03/03/14 at 04:48pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 15:24 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/03/2014 02:59 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
-1 from me. Sounds like a way to avoid badly needed change and
innovation in the API. When,
On 03/03/14 at 06:17pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 17:56 -0500, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 03/03/14 at 04:48pm, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 15:24 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
On 03/03/2014 02:59 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
-1 from me. Sounds like a way to avoid badly needed
-Original Message-
From: Russell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:31 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
On 03/03/2014 04:25 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
This seems
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Laski
andrew.la...@rackspace.com wrote:
Totally understand. But I would contend that it's because v3 is mostly
minor changes that we're even having this conversation.
In all fairness, that's because that's what we asked them to do when
we approved the
On Mar 3, 2014, at 1:25 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems like a reasonable and well thought out approach but It feels
like we are removing our ability to innovate. I know we are worried about
maintaining multiple APIs, but I’m still leaning towards putting the v3
On 03/03/2014 05:35 PM, Michael Still wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3 API
recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we should
change course and focus on
On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:32:04 -0500
Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
There has been quite a bit of discussion about the future of the v3
API recently. There has been growing support for the idea that we
should change course and focus on evolving the existing v2 API
instead of putting
51 matches
Mail list logo
