Hi Gary, First I’m seeing these, but I don’t see that they’re required on input, unless I’m mis-reading those reviews. Additional of new output fields to a json object, or adding optional inputs, is not generally considered to be backwards incompatible behavior in an API. Does OpenStack have a stricter standard on that?
Thanks, doug > On Mar 19, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Gary Kotton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > Changed the subject so that it may draw a little attention. > There were 2 patches approved that kind of break the API (in my humble > opinion): > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154921 > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154921>/ and > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158420 > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158420>/ > In both of these two new fields were added to the base attributes – mtu and > vlan_transparency > Reverts for them are: > https://review.openstack.org/165801 <https://review.openstack.org/165801> > (mtu) and https://review.openstack.org/165776 > <https://review.openstack.org/165776> (vlan transparency). > In my opinion these should be added as separate extensions. > Thanks > Gary > > From: Gary Kotton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Reply-To: OpenStack List <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 2:32 PM > To: OpenStack List <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] VLAN transparency support > > Hi, > This patch has the same addition too - > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154921 > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154921>/. We should also revert that one. > Thanks > Gary > > From: Gary Kotton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Reply-To: OpenStack List <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 at 1:14 PM > To: OpenStack List <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] VLAN transparency support > > Hi, > It appears that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158420 > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/158420>/ update the base attributes for the > networks. Is there any reason why this was not added as a separate extension > like all others. > I do not think that this is the correct way to go and we should do this as > all other extensions have been maintained. I have posted a revert > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165776 > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165776>/) – please feel free to knack if it > is invalid. > Thanks > Gary > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
