> On Mar 9, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Ed Leafe <e...@leafe.com> wrote:
>
> Greetings OpenStack community,
>
> Today's meeting started on a heavyhearted note, as we hoisted our virtual
> beers and gave a toast to Everett Toews, who recently had to step down from
> his AP
On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi
> wrote:
2017-02-06 6:45 GMT-08:00 Brian Rosmaita
>:
On 2/6/17 5:51 AM, Jordan Pittier wrote:
[super-enormous snip -- Chris, Ken, and
On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Devananda van der Veen
wrote:
>
> So I have finalized five proposals of substantial changes we can make, that
> folks agreed were important to work on, and which I believe we can do within
> the
> microversion framework starting
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
> On 2016-10-06 10:30:30 -0500 (-0500), Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
> [...]
>> Problem with that is that ':' is a valid character within an ISO date,
>> though I do like the 'between' prefix. Now, '/' can be used if it's
Subject: [all][api] POST /api-wg/news
Greetings OpenStack community,
Today we were joined by Scott DAngelo (scottda) who has graciously taken over
the liaison role for Cinder as Alex Meade steps down. Thanks for stepping up
Scott and welcome to the API WG!
We also cleaned house today and
Top posting with general comment...
It sounds like there's some consensus in Nova-land around these traits (née
"capabilities"). The API Working Group [4] is also aware of similar efforts in
Cinder [1][2] and Glance [3].
If these are truly the same concepts being discussed across projects, it
Greetings OpenStack community,
Our main new topic for today was making sure that we take a more active role in
curating the bugs that are now being kept in launchpad [4] by including review
of those bugs in the workshopping that we do in each meeting. If you find
issues in the existing
On Aug 3, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Ramakrishna, Deepti
> wrote:
Hi,
I would like to bring your attention to my spec [1] (already approved) on
capability APIs and would like to get feedback from API WG.
To summarize, I propose
Greetings OpenStack community,
A few interesting developments in the API WG this week.
The API WG reviewed the new Glance Artifact Repository (aka Glare) API [4]. The
team was already adhering to most of the API WG guidelines [3] and after some
reviews they were able to get excellent coverage
> On Jun 1, 2016, at 2:01 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
> Agree with Sean, I'd prefer separate microversions since it makes getting
> these in easier since they are easier to review (and remember we make changes
> to python-novaclient for each of these also).
>
>
> On May 9, 2016, at 10:12 AM, michael mccune wrote:
>
> Promoting the guidelines
>
>
> The heart of the API-WG has always been the guidelines that are produced, we
> had a nice discussion about how we can increase the awareness and usage of
> the
Hi All,
The following API guideline is ready for final review. It will be merged on
March 18, if there's no further feedback.
1. Header non-proliferation guideline
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/280381/
Cheers,
Everett
On Jan 17, 2016, at 8:56 PM, Qiming Teng
> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:48:51PM +, Chris Dent wrote:
At yesterday's API Working Group meeting we decided it would be a
good idea to send out a refresher on the existence of
On Dec 2, 2015, at 12:32 AM, 王华
> wrote:
Adrian,
I would like to be an alternate.
Regards
Wanghua
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Adrian Otto
> wrote:
Everett,
Thanks for
Hello Magnumites,
The API Working Group [1] is looking for a Cross-Project Liaison [2] from the
Magnum project.
What does such a role entail?
The API Working Group seeks API subject matter experts for each project to
communicate plans for API updates, review API guidelines with their
On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:58 AM, michael mccune wrote:
>
> On 11/30/2015 08:45 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Ok, I'm going to assume with no real disagreement we're agreed here. I'm
>> moving the api-wg notifications to #openstack-sdks now -
>>
Hi All,
The following API guidelines are ready for cross project review. They will be
merged on Nov. 20 if there's no further feedback.
1. Add introduction for API micro version guideline
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187112/
2. Add description of pagination parameters
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 12:01 PM, John Dickinson <m...@not.mn> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 13 Nov 2015, at 9:42, Everett Toews wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The following API guidelines are ready for cross project review. They will
>> be merged on Nov.
Please note that should be #openstack-sdks (plural) !
> On Nov 13, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> The #openstack-api IRC channel is quite quiet most days. As such it's
> not something that people are regularly checking in on, or often forget
> about (I know I've been
On Nov 9, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Tony Breeds wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:19PM +, John Garbutt wrote:
>
>> Ideally, I would like us to fill out that pagination part first.
>
> It seems the person leading this within the API-WG is AWOL so ...
A couple of
On Nov 6, 2015, at 6:30 AM, John Garbutt
> wrote:
On 6 November 2015 at 12:11, Sean Dague >
wrote:
On 11/06/2015 04:13 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
It makes sense to have a single point were response
On Nov 3, 2015, at 11:46 PM, John Griffith
> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:57 PM, michael mccune
> wrote:
On 11/03/2015 05:20 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
What if we add new API method that will
On Nov 5, 2015, at 5:44 AM, John Garbutt
> wrote:
On 5 November 2015 at 09:46, Richard Jones
> wrote:
As a consumer of such APIs on the Horizon side, I'm all for consistency in
pagination,
On Oct 9, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> It looks like some great conversation got going on the service catalog
> standardization spec / discussion at the last cross project meeting.
> Sorry I wasn't there to participate.
>
> A lot of that ended up in here (which was an
Hi All,
The following API guidelines are ready for cross project review. They will be
merged on Oct. 16 if there's no further feedback.
1. Adds an API documentation guideline document
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/214817/
2. Add http400 for nonexistent resource
On Sep 1, 2015, at 8:36 PM, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> Does anyone have an example of an API outside of OpenStack that would return
> 400 in this situation (arbitrary query string parameters)? Based on my past
> experience, I'd expect them to be ignored, but I can't think
On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:48 AM, Everett Toews <everett.to...@rackspace.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The following API guidelines are ready for cross project review. They will be
> merged on Sept. 4 if there's no further feedback.
>
> 1. Add description of pagin
On Aug 28, 2015, at 6:10 PM, Morgan Fainberg morgan.fainb...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems like Flask has a reasonable amount of support and there is a good
ecosystem around it but that aside (as Jay said)... I definitely support
exposing the schema to the end user; making it easier for the end
Hi All,
The following API guidelines are ready for cross project review. They will be
merged on Sept. 4 if there's no further feedback.
1. Add description of pagination parameters
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/190743/
2. Require OpenStack- in headers
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/215683/
On Aug 26, 2015, at 4:45 AM, Henry Nash hen...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi
With keystone, we recently came across an issue in terms of the assumptions
that the openstack client is making about the entities it can show - namely
that is assumes all entries have a ‘name’ attribute (which is
On Aug 21, 2015, at 3:13 PM, Geoff Arnold ge...@geoffarnold.com wrote:
After reading the following pages, it’s unclear what the current API
deprecation policy is and who owns it. (The first spec implies that a change
took place in May 2015, but is silent on what and why.) Any hints? An
On Aug 9, 2015, at 11:03 PM, hao wang
sxmatch1...@gmail.commailto:sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, stackers
Since now we have merged filtering guideline[1], is that said we should
implement this feature according this guideline? like this:
GET /app/items?f_updated_at=gte:some_timestamp
Do
Hi All,
We have 7 API Guidelines that are ready for a final review.
1. Add section clarifying PUT vs PATCH semantics
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183945/
2. Adding 5xx guidance
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183698/
3. Adds a small update to tagging guidance
On Jun 18, 2015, at 3:07 PM, Devdatta Kulkarni
devdatta.kulka...@rackspace.commailto:devdatta.kulka...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi, API WG team,
In Solum, recently we have been working on some changes to our REST API.
Basically, we have introduced a new resource ('app'). The spec for this has
Hi All,
We have 3 API Guidelines that are ready for a final review.
1. Add section on filtering
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/177468/
2. http guideline expansion: background
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181931/
3. Should not return server-side tracebacks
On May 15, 2015, at 3:49 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Dieterly, Deklan wrote:
We’ve seen that Swift has introduced components in Go. So, this looks like a
precedent for allowing other languages where deemed appropriate. Before we
spend many man-hours hacking on the Python
On May 15, 2015, at 10:28 AM, John Griffith
john.griffi...@gmail.commailto:john.griffi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Matt Riedemann
mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.commailto:mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
This came up while talking about bug 1454369 [1]. This also came up at
Top posting to make it official...Michael McCune (elmiko) is an API Working
Group core!
Cheers,
Everett
On May 11, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Ryan Brown rybr...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/11/2015 04:18 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
I would like to propose Michael McCune (elmiko) as an API Working Group core
This blog post is basically a preview of our cross-project session.
http://blog.phymata.com/2015/05/14/state-of-the-api-wg-liberty-edition/
The API WG will also be busy bunch at the Summit.
1 cross-project session
API Working Group: State of the Group [1]
2 working group sessions
API
On May 11, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Dean Troyer
dtro...@gmail.commailto:dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Rosa, Andrea (HP Cloud Services)
andrea.r...@hp.commailto:andrea.r...@hp.com wrote:
Agreed. Violating the HTTP spec is something that should be avoided.
Actually it is
I would like to propose Michael McCune (elmiko) as an API Working Group core.
Among Michael’s many fine qualities:
* Active from the start
* Highly available
* Very knowledgable about APIs
* Committed the guideline template
* Working on moving the API Guidelines wiki page
* Lots of
On May 6, 2015, at 1:58 PM, David Kranz
dkr...@redhat.commailto:dkr...@redhat.com wrote:
+1
The basic problem is we are trying to fit a square (generic api) peg in a round
(HTTP request/response) hole.
But if we do say we are recognizing sub-error-codes, it might be good to
actually give them
On Apr 30, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stackers,
OK, so Matthew Gilliard and Alex Xu have volunteered to be the Nova team's
liaisons to the API working group. Big thank you to Matthew and Alex for
volunteering for this important role.
I've created a wiki
All 3 API guidelines have merged. Thanks everyone!
Everett
On Apr 22, 2015, at 2:08 PM, Everett Toews everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi All,
We have 3 API Guidelines that are ready for a final review.
1. Metadata guidelines document
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141229/
2
Hi All,
I’ll be out the next few days and will be missing our meetings. Specifically
the cross-project meeting [1] and our API WG meeting [2].
On the plus side I got to my action items from the last meeting and “froze” the
3 guidelines up for review and proposed a cross-project session [3]
Hi All,
We have 3 API Guidelines that are ready for a final review.
1. Metadata guidelines document
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/141229/
2. Tagging guidelines
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/155620/
3. Guidelines on using date and time format
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/159892/
If
On Apr 20, 2015, at 7:07 PM, Ian Wells
ijw.ubu...@cack.org.ukmailto:ijw.ubu...@cack.org.uk wrote:
On 20 April 2015 at 15:23, Matthew Treinish
mtrein...@kortar.orgmailto:mtrein...@kortar.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 03:10:40PM -0700, Ian Wells wrote:
It would be nice to have a consistent
On Apr 20, 2015, at 2:45 PM, Chris Dent chd...@redhat.com wrote:
I wanted to make a quick update on the latest happenings with
gabbi[0], the tool I've created to do declarative testing of
OpenStack APIs (starting with Ceilometer and Gnocchi).
* Jay Pipes and I are doing a presentation API
On Apr 20, 2015, at 2:19 PM, Douglas Mendizabal
douglas.mendiza...@rackspace.commailto:douglas.mendiza...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Hi openstack-dev@
I was wondering if the API Working Group had an opinion on how to deal with
minor changes to the api? For example, what if you wanted to add a new
On Apr 1, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Ian Cordasco ian.corda...@rackspace.com wrote:
On 4/1/15, 08:24, michael mccune m...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/01/2015 08:35 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 03/31/2015 10:13 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
Ever since daylight savings time it has been increasing difficult
On Jan 29, 2015, at 8:34 PM, Rochelle Grober
rochelle.gro...@huawei.commailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi folks!
Changed the tags a bit because this is a discussion for all projects and
dovetails with logging rationalization/standards/
At the Paris summit, we had a number of session
Ever since daylight savings time it has been increasing difficult for many API
WG members to make it to the Thursday 00:00 UTC meeting time.
Do we change it so there’s only the Thursday 16:00 UTC meeting time?
On a related note, I can’t make it to tomorrow’s meeting. Can someone else
please
Hi All,
An API Working Group Guideline for Errors
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/167793/
Errors are a crucial part of the developer experience when using an API. As
developers learn the API they inevitably run into errors. The quality and
consistency of the error messages returned to them
Top posting to continue the discussion in another thread.
[openstack-dev] [all] [api] Erring is Caring
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-March/060314.html
Everett
On Feb 4, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Duncan Thomas
duncan.tho...@gmail.commailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com wrote:
Top posting the relevant review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/161946/
Everett
On Feb 13, 2015, at 8:44 AM, michael mccune
m...@redhat.commailto:m...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/12/2015 02:20 PM, Ryan Brown wrote:
+1 I think the way to go would be:
We suggest (pretty please) that you comply
On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Brian Rosmaita brian.rosma...@rackspace.com
wrote:
I don't know how elaborate we want to get here, but Everett Toews had an
interesting suggestion in the openstack-api channel. It would go something
like this:
(1) User gets /x1/search endpoint from service
On Feb 25, 2015, at 10:47 AM, Doug Hellmann
d...@doughellmann.commailto:d...@doughellmann.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015, at 09:33 AM, Eugeniya Kudryashova wrote:
Hi, stackers!
As was suggested in topic [1], using an HTTP header was a good solution
for
communicating common/standardized
On Feb 12, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Ryan Brown
rybr...@redhat.commailto:rybr...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/10/2015 08:01 AM, Everett Toews wrote:
On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Jay Pipes
jaypi...@gmail.commailto:jaypi...@gmail.com
mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/02/2015 02:51 PM, Stefano Maffulli
I’ll be missing the next API WG meeting [1] as I’m in some all day training.
Someone else will have to #startmeeting api wg
Cheers,
Everett
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG
__
OpenStack Development
On Feb 9, 2015, at 9:28 PM, Jay Pipes
jaypi...@gmail.commailto:jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/02/2015 02:51 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 23:05 +, Everett Toews wrote:
To converge the OpenStack APIs to a consistent and pragmatic RESTful
design by creating guidelines
, Everett Toews wrote:
It was suggested that the API WG use the openstack-specs [1] and/or
the api-wg [2] repo to publish its guidelines. We’ve already arrived
at the consensus that we should only use 1 repo [3]. So the purpose of
this thread is to decide...
Should the API WG use the openstack-specs repo
On Feb 3, 2015, at 10:07 AM, michael mccune m...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/02/2015 08:58 AM, Chris Dent wrote:
This is pretty good but I think it leaves unresolved the biggest
question I've had about this process: What's so great about
converging the APIs? If we can narrow or clarify that
On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Sean Dague s...@dague.netmailto:s...@dague.net
wrote:
On 02/02/2015 05:35 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 01/29/2015 12:41 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
Correct. This actually came up at the Nova mid cycle in a side
conversation with Ironic and Neutron folks.
HTTP error codes are
On Jan 29, 2015, at 7:34 PM, Rochelle Grober
rochelle.gro...@huawei.commailto:rochelle.gro...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi folks!
Changed the tags a bit because this is a discussion for all projects and
dovetails with logging rationalization/standards/
At the Paris summit, we had a number of session
Hi All,
Something we in the API WG keep bumping into are misconceptions around what our
mission really is. There’s general agreement in the WG about our mission but we
haven’t formalized it.
It’s really highlighted the need for a mission statement/elevator pitch/mantra
that we can repeat to
On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Everett Toews everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi All,
Something we in the API WG keep bumping into are misconceptions around what
our mission really is. There’s general agreement in the WG about our mission
but we haven’t formalized it.
It’s really
On Jan 29, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
Correct. This actually came up at the Nova mid cycle in a side
conversation with Ironic and Neutron folks.
HTTP error codes are not sufficiently granular to describe what happens
when a REST service goes wrong, especially if it
The suggestion of whether to use 1 or 2 repos for the API WG surfaced on the ML
here [1]. That thread then morphed into a discussion on whether to use 1 or 2
repos. I believe it’s correct to say that the consensus on that thread was for
1 repo.
We also discussed the question of 1 or 2 repos
On Jan 30, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Jesse Keating j...@bluebox.net wrote:
On 1/30/15 1:08 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
Project: A client dealing with the API already knows what project
(service) they’re dealing with. Including this in an API error message
would be redundant. That’s not necessarily so
It was suggested that the API WG use the openstack-specs [1] and/or the api-wg
[2] repo to publish its guidelines. We’ve already arrived at the consensus that
we should only use 1 repo [3]. So the purpose of this thread is to decide...
Should the API WG use the openstack-specs repo or the
On Jan 18, 2015, at 9:25 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/13/2015 07:41 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 01/09/2015 04:17 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
One thing that has come up in the past couple of API WG meetings
[1] is just how useful a proper API definition would be for the
OpenStack
A couple of important topics came up as a result of attending the Cross Project
Meeting. I’ve added both to the agenda for the next meeting on Thursday
2015/01/29 at 16:00 UTC.
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda
The first is the suggestion from ttx to consider using
I’d like to announce that a new API guideline has been accepted for Collection
Resources.
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/representation_structure.html#collection-resources
JSON request and response representations for collection resources should be
an object that
On Jan 9, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
Adding [api] topic.
On 01/08/2015 07:47 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
Is there another openstack service that allows this so we can make the
API consistent between the two when this change is made?
Kevin, thank you VERY much for
One thing that has come up in the past couple of API WG meetings [1] is just
how useful a proper API definition would be for the OpenStack projects.
By API definition I mean a format like Swagger, RAML, API Blueprint, etc. These
formats are a machine/human readable way of describing your API.
On Jan 6, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Kevin L. Mitchell kevin.mitch...@rackspace.com
wrote:
On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 12:19 -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
I'm all for consistency. Sounds like a great case for the API Working
Group to document. You can propose a patch describing the way we want
sorting to
I thought the analysis on service catalogs might attract some attention. ;)
More inline
On Dec 19, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Amit Gandhi amit.gan...@rackspace.com wrote:
How do the allocation of the service types in the service catalog get created.
AFAICT it’s arbitrary. Provider picks the string
Hi All,
At the recent API WG meeting [1] we discussed the need for more analysis of
current API design.
We need to get better at doing analysis of current API design as part of our
guideline proposals. We are not creating these guidelines in a vacuum. The
current design should be analyzed and
Hello MagnetoDB!
During the latest meeting [1] of the API Working Group (WG) we noticed that
MagnetoDB made use of the APIImpact flag [2]. That’s excellent and exactly how
we were hoping the use of flag as a discovery mechanism would work!
We were wondering if the MagentoDB team would like to
On Nov 20, 2014, at 4:06 PM, Eoghan Glynn
egl...@redhat.commailto:egl...@redhat.com wrote:
How about allowing the caller to specify what level of detail
they require via the Accept header?
▶ GET /prefix/resource_name
Accept: application/json; detail=concise
The Accept request-header field can
I’ve also added APIImpact flag info to the Git Commit Messages page [1].
Everett
[1]
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/GitCommitMessages#Including_external_references
On Nov 19, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Everett Toews
everett.to...@rackspace.commailto:everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Nov 13
On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We have moved to alternating times each week for the API WG meeting so
people from other timezones can attend. Since this is an odd week
the meeting will be Thursday UTC 1600. Details here:
On Nov 16, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
My 2c is we should say The liason should be the PTL or whomever they
delegate to be their representative and not mention anything about the
person needing to be a core developer. It removes any ambiguity about who
Does anybody know what happened to the Etherpad? It’s completely blank now!!!
If you check the Timeslider, it appears that it only ever existed on Nov. 15.
Bizarre.
Everett
On Nov 14, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Everett Toews everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi All,
Here’s a summary of what
On Nov 13, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Everett Toews
everett.to...@rackspace.commailto:everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Nov 12, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Angus Salkeld
asalk...@mirantis.commailto:asalk...@mirantis.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Everett Toews
everett.to
By the way, I’m off the next couple of days so I won’t be able to attend this
meeting.
See you!
Everett
On Nov 19, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We have moved to alternating times each week for the API WG meeting so
people from other timezones can
Hello PTLs of Ceilometer, Heat, Horizon, and Trove,
The purpose of the API Working Group [1] is to propose, discuss, review, and
advocate for API guidelines for all OpenStack Programs to follow. We’re seeking
API subject matter experts and a cross-project liaison [2] for each project to
On Nov 14, 2014, at 1:43 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/14/2014 05:13 PM, Everett Toews wrote:
The liaison should be a core reviewer for the project, but does not
need to be the PTL. By default, the liaison will be the PTL.
]Anyway, the outcome of the email exchange
Hi All,
Here’s a summary of what happened at the Summit from the API Working Group
perspective.
Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-crossproject-api-wg
The 2 design summit sessions on Tuesday were very well attended, maybe 100ish
people I’m guessing. I got the impression there
On Nov 12, 2014, at 10:45 PM, Angus Salkeld
asalk...@mirantis.commailto:asalk...@mirantis.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Everett Toews
everett.to...@rackspace.commailto:everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi All,
Chris Yeoh started the use of an APIImpact flag in commit messages
Here’s the agenda [1] for our upcoming meeting.
Everett
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/API-WG#Agenda
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
The schedule for the Paris sessions has been finalized and the API Working
Group has two design summit sessions and one follow up session on Thursday!
Part 1
Tuesday November 4, 2014 11:15 - 11:55
Room: Manet
http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/13fc460f359646dcd41d6a2d7ad0bec0
Part 2
Link to the follow up session
Thursday November 6, 2014 16:30 - 18:00
Room: Hyatt - Vendome room (Hyatt Hotel)
http://kilodesignsummit.sched.org/event/3f0a5f22f2d641ef69965373f3e23983
Everett
On Oct 31, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Everett Toews everett.to...@rackspace.com wrote:
The schedule
Hi All,
Chris Yeoh started the use of an APIImpact flag in commit messages for specs in
Nova. It adds a requirement for an APIImpact flag in the commit message for a
proposed spec if it proposes changes to the REST API. This will make it much
easier for people such as the API Working Group who
I notice at the top of the GitHub mirror page [1] it reads, API Working Group
http://openstack.org”
Can we get that changed to API Working Group
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group”?
That URL would be much more helpful to people who come across the GitHub repo.
It's not a code
On Oct 15, 2014, at 5:52 AM, Christopher Yeoh
cbky...@gmail.commailto:cbky...@gmail.com wrote:
We don't require new templates as part of nova-specs and api changes don't
necessarily change the api sample tpl files. We do ask for some jsonschema
descriptions of the new APIs input but they work
On Oct 14, 2014, at 8:57 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
I personally think proposing patches to an openstack-api repository is the
most effective way to make those proposals. Etherpads and wiki pages are fine
for dumping content, but IMO, we don't need to dump content -- we already
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/API_Working_Group
This is the start of the API Working Group (API WG).
To avoid bike shedding over the name of the working group, I decided to title
the wiki page API Working Group. Simple, to the point, and avoids loaded terms
like standards, best practices,
On Sep 24, 2014, at 9:42 AM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll bring an API consumer's perspective.
+1
I’d bring an API consumer’s perspective as well.
Looks like there’s lots of support for an API WG. What’s the next step?
Form a WG under the User Committee [1] or is there
On Sep 24, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote:
Seems like there is some overlap with the end user (i.e. consumer) working
group at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/End_User_Working_Group
Sounds like it would be worth discussing with them on how to focus on these
needs. The
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo