On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > 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.
humm, actually m confused now whether we should consider changing error code as backward incompatible or not. or its more broken in 2 part? 1 introduced new error code (500-> new error code) 2. changing to existing error code and which one is backward incompatible? IMO (considering most users/app checking existing/published error code range) 1 one should be considered as backward incompatible. > > -- > > 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 -- Thanks & Regards Ghanshyam Mann __________________________________________________________________________ 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