Sure sure, let me not make that assumption (can't speak for them), but even libraries on pypi have to deal with API instability.
Just more of suggesting, might as well bite the bullet (if objects folks feel ok with this) and just learn to deal with the pypi method for dealing with API instability (versions, deprecation...). Since code copying around is just creating a miniature version of the same 'learning experience' except u lose the other parts (versioning, deprecation, ...) which comes along with pypi and libraries. Anyways, just a thought. -Josh On 12/3/13 2:39 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" <mar...@redhat.com> wrote: >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:31 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote: >> Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these >> types of discussions wouldn't occur. Right? > >You're assuming the Nova objects API is at a point where the maintainers >of it feel ready to commit to API stability. > >Mark. > >> On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" <mar...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote: >> > >> >> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo. >> > >> >It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of >> >oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make >> >a commitment to API stability. >> > >> >It's often easier to start a new API completely standalone, push it to >> >PyPI and plan for API backwards compatibility from the start. No-one >>has >> >ever said that such APIs need to go through oslo-incubator "for process >> >sake". >> > >> >Mark. >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
