On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Flavio Percoco wrote:
A full rewrite of the library that doesn't take under consideration
the existing deployed technologies is not going to be of any help,
IMHO. The reason being that upgradability would be broken and that's a
no-go. I believe Clynt was trying to make the same point when he
brought up the choice of backends up.
As I understood some of the proposals the idea was to transcend
backwards compatibility limitations by having two solutions
available concurrently. Services could migrate to the new way as
they are able.
This sort of solution is sometimes required when upgradability is
making it impossible to fix a big problem. We should probably
consider it more often.
--
Chris Dent ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ) https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
__________________________________________________________________________
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
