On 8/19/2015 12:18 PM, Chen CH Ji wrote:
In doing [1] [2], some suggestions raised that those kind of change need
microversion bump which is fine
however, another concern raised on whether we need combine a set of
those kind of changes (which may only change some error code) into one
bump ?
apparently there are pros and cons for doing so, combine makes API
version bump not that frequent for minor changes
but makes it hard to review and backport ... so any suggestions on how
to handle ? Thanks
[1]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198753/
[2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/173985/
Best Regards!
Kevin (Chen) Ji 纪 晨
Engineer, zVM Development, CSTL
Notes: Chen CH Ji/China/IBM@IBMCN Internet: jiche...@cn.ibm.com
Phone: +86-10-82454158
Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian
District, Beijing 100193, PRC
__________________________________________________________________________
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
I don't see why https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198753/ would require a
microversion bump. We've always allowed handling 500s and turning them
into more appropriate error codes, like a 400 in this case.
As noted:
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/api-wg/guidelines/evaluating_api_changes.html
"Changing an error response code to be more accurate." is generally
acceptable.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
__________________________________________________________________________
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
