On 09/06/2016 11:42 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-06 15:36:42 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>>> On 2016-09-06 15:30, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> [...]
>> Since neut
On 2016-09-06 17:42:03 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
> There are two related but separate questions here:
> - is there time when we can drop API from api-ref when it’s removed in code?
> - if so, when is it: right when the API is dropped, or when all branches
> supporting it are gone?
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka
wrote:
> Alexander wrote:
>
> FYI,
>>
>> A similar discussion was held for an api-ref change in Glance:
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/356693/
>>
>
> Thanks for the link, it led me to this discussion:
> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/op
Alexander wrote:
FYI,
A similar discussion was held for an api-ref change in Glance:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/356693/
Thanks for the link, it led me to this discussion:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-August/101501.html
From the looks of it, seems like the re
Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-09-06 15:36:42 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 2016-09-06 15:30, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
Since neutron-lib is branched on stable/* boundary, I feel that it
would
be fine to keep
On 2016-09-06 15:36:42 +0200 (+0200), Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> On 2016-09-06 15:30, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> Since neutron-lib is branched on stable/* boundary, I feel that it would
> >>> be fine to keep
FYI,
A similar discussion was held for an api-ref change in Glance:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/356693/
On Sep 6, 2016, at 6:39 AM, Andreas Jaeger
mailto:a...@suse.com>> wrote:
On 2016-09-06 15:30, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Andreas Jaeger mailto:a...@suse.com>> wrote:
On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ih
On 2016-09-06 15:30, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Since neutron-lib is branched on stable/* boundary, I feel that it would
>>> be fine to keep one-to-one relationship between neutron and neutron-lib
>>> api-ref branc
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
[...]
Since neutron-lib is branched on stable/* boundary, I feel that it would
be fine to keep one-to-one relationship between neutron and neutron-lib
api-ref branches.
We only publish the api-ref documents from master,
Is i
On 2016-09-06 15:02, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> [...]
> Since neutron-lib is branched on stable/* boundary, I feel that it would
> be fine to keep one-to-one relationship between neutron and neutron-lib
> api-ref branches.
We only publish the api-ref documents from master,
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeg
On 9/6/16, 2:02 PM, "Ihar Hrachyshka" wrote:
>Akihiro Motoki wrote:
>
>> What releases should we support in API references?
>> There are several options.
>>
>> 1. The latest stable release + master
>> 2. All supported stable releases + master
>> 3. more older releases too?
>>
>> Option 2 sound
2016-09-06 22:02 GMT+09:00 Ihar Hrachyshka :
> Akihiro Motoki wrote:
>
>> What releases should we support in API references?
>> There are several options.
>>
>> 1. The latest stable release + master
>> 2. All supported stable releases + master
>> 3. more older releases too?
>>
>> Option 2 sounds r
Akihiro Motoki wrote:
What releases should we support in API references?
There are several options.
1. The latest stable release + master
2. All supported stable releases + master
3. more older releases too?
Option 2 sounds reasonable to me.
This question is raised in the neutron api-ref pat
Option 2 sounds reasonable to me too. :)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Akihiro Motoki wrote:
> What releases should we support in API references?
> There are several options.
>
> 1. The latest stable release + master
> 2. All supported stable releases + master
> 3. more older releases too?
>
>
What releases should we support in API references?
There are several options.
1. The latest stable release + master
2. All supported stable releases + master
3. more older releases too?
Option 2 sounds reasonable to me.
This question is raised in the neutron api-ref patch [1].
This patch drops t
15 matches
Mail list logo
