On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 06:02:59AM +0000, Murali Reddy wrote: > On 28/05/13 11:42 PM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > > > >+1 to this proposal (with one concern noted below). > > > >> > >> Effort I am proposing is to get API semantics right with minimal > >>changes. > >> I am not proposing to enable portability for zone level public Ip's for > >> 4.2 but can be done for later release. Please comment. > > > >Does it make sense to actually get the API for 4.2 to match this > >proposal? Once we release it, changing the meaning really means > >breaking the contract, right? > > I was not clear in my mail. Yes, my intention is to get the API right for > 4.2 so that it can be extended cleanly in later releases.
ACK - thanks for clarifying. LGTM
