On 4 June 2015 at 02:58, Xu, Hejie <hejie...@intel.com> wrote: > ... > And another guideline for when we should bump Mircoversion > *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187896/* > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/187896/> > >
This is timely because just this very minute I was going to send out email to the Ironic community about this -- when *should* we bump the microversion. For fear of hijacking this thread, I'm going to start a new thread to discuss with Ironic folks first. > As I know, there already have a little different between Nova and Ironic’s > implementation. Ironic return min/max version when the requested > version doesn’t support in server by http-headers. There isn’t such thing > in nova. But that is something for version negotiation we need for nova > also. > Sean have pointed out we should use response body instead of http headers, > the body can includes error message. Really hope ironic team can take a > look at if you guys have compelling reason for using http headers. > I don't want to change the ironic code so let's go with http headers. (That's a good enough reason, isn't it?) :-) By the way, did you see Ironic's spec on the/our desired behaviour between Ironic's server and client [1]? It's ... <add your own adjective here>. Thanks Alex! --ruby [1] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/ironic-specs/specs/kilo/api-microversions.html
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
