On 02/24/2014 08:31 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:17:34 -0500 > Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > >> On 02/24/2014 06:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote: >>> On 02/24/2014 04:59 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >>> >>>> So, that begs a new approach. Because I think at this point even >>>> if we did put out Nova v3, there can never be a v4. It's too much, >>>> too big, and doesn't fit in the incremental nature of the project. >>> >>> Does it necessarily need to be that way though? Maybe we bump the >>> version number every time we make a non-backwards-compatible change, >>> even if it's just removing an API call that has been deprecated for >>> a while. >> >> So I'm not sure how this is different than the keep v2 and use >> microversioning suggestion that is already in this thread. > > For non backwards compatible changes I think the difference is in how > the user accesses the API. When only make major changes when bumping > the major version then they know for sure that if they access > > /v3/foo > > then they're app will work. If /v3 doesn't exist then they know it's > not supported. > > Whereas if we make backwards incompatible changes within a major > version then they have to start checking the microversion first.
<snip> A point of clarification on the micro-version idea. IMO, the only changes acceptable under such a scheme are backwards compatible ones. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev