On 10/01/15 at 06:17am, Sean Dague wrote:
On 09/30/2015 10:41 PM, melanie witt wrote:
On Sep 30, 2015, at 14:45, Andrew Laski <and...@lascii.com
<mailto:and...@lascii.com>> wrote:
I have a slight preference for #1. Nova is not buggy here novaclient
is so I think we should contain the fix there.
Is using the v2 API an option? That should also allow the 3 extra
parameters mentioned in #2.
It could be, but it would invalidate the claim that operators can just
point people at v2.1 and it won't be noticed.
I thought we were always clear that it shouldn't be noticed, unless the
client in use was doing something it shouldn't be. The goal of strict
validation was to make that known to users. Bugs in Tempest were
discovered this way and bugs in novaclient and the previous response has
always been to fix client behavior.
+1. I have put up https://review.openstack.org/229669 in -W mode in case
we decide to go that route.
-melanie
As the concensus is for item #1, I'm fine with that. +2 on
https://review.openstack.org/229669.
Let's get that landed and cut a new release today.
-Sean
--
Sean Dague
http://dague.net
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
