On 05/30/2016 10:05 PM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: > I think it is good to share codes and a single microversion can make > life more easier during coding. > Can we approve those specs first and then decide on the details in IRC > and patch review? Because > the non-priority spec deadline is so close. > > Thanks > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi <ken1ohmi...@gmail.com > <mailto:ken1ohmi...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 2016-05-29 19:25 GMT-07:00 Alex Xu <sou...@gmail.com > <mailto:sou...@gmail.com>>: > > > > > > 2016-05-20 20:05 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague <s...@dague.net > <mailto:s...@dague.net>>: > >> > >> There are a number of changes up for spec reviews that add parameters > to > >> LIST interfaces in Newton: > >> > >> * keypairs-pagination (MERGED) - > >> > >> > https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/8d16fc11ee6d01b5a9fe1b8b7ab7fa6dff460e2a/specs/newton/approved/keypairs-pagination.rst#L2 > >> * os-instances-actions - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240401/ > >> * hypervisors - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240401/ > >> * os-migrations - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/239869/ > >> > >> I think that limit / marker is always a legit thing to add, and I > almost > >> wish we just had a single spec which is "add limit / marker to the > >> following APIs in Newton" > >> > > > > Are you looking for code sharing or one microversion? For code sharing, > it > > sounds ok if people have some co-work. Probably we need a common > pagination > > supported model_query function for all of those. For one microversion, > i'm a > > little hesitate, we should keep one small change, or enable all in one > > microversion. But if we have some base code for pagination support, we > > probably can make the pagination as default thing support for all list > > method? > > It is nice to share some common code for this, that would be nice for > writing the api doc also to know what APIs support them. > And also nice to do it with a single microversion for the above > resources, because we can avoid microversion bumping conflict and all > of them don't seem a big change.
There is already common code for limit / marker. I don't think these all need to be one microversion, they are honestly easier to review if they are not. However in future we should probably make 1 spec for all limit / marker adds during a cycle. Just because the answer will be *yes* and seems like more work to have everything be a dedicated spec. -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