2015-08-29 2:07 GMT+08:00 Matt Riedemann mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com:
On 8/28/2015 10:35 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Aug 28, 2015 6:49 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 08/28/2015 09:32 AM, Alex Meade wrote:
I don't know if this is really a big problem.
On 08/28/2015 09:34 AM, Valeriy Ponomaryov wrote:
Dmitriy,
New tests, that cover new functionality already know which API version
they require. So, even in testing, it is not needed. All other existing
tests do not require API update.
Yeah, but you can't be sure that your change does not
On 08/27/2015 09:38 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
Manila recently implemented microversions, copying the implementation
from Nova. I really like the feature! However I noticed that it's legal
for clients to transmit latest instead of a real version number.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA!
I recommend
Dmitriy,
New tests, that cover new functionality already know which API version they
require. So, even in testing, it is not needed. All other existing tests do
not require API update.
So, I raise hand for restricting latest.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com
I don't know if this is really a big problem. IMO, even with microversions
you shouldn't be implementing things that aren't backwards compatible
within the major version. I thought the benefit of microversions is to know
if a given feature exists within the major version you are using. I would
On 08/28/2015 09:32 AM, Alex Meade wrote:
I don't know if this is really a big problem. IMO, even with
microversions you shouldn't be implementing things that aren't backwards
compatible within the major version. I thought the benefit of
microversions is to know if a given feature exists
On Aug 28, 2015 6:49 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
On 08/28/2015 09:32 AM, Alex Meade wrote:
I don't know if this is really a big problem. IMO, even with
microversions you shouldn't be implementing things that aren't backwards
compatible within the major version. I thought the
On 8/28/2015 10:35 AM, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Aug 28, 2015 6:49 AM, Sean Dague s...@dague.net
mailto:s...@dague.net wrote:
On 08/28/2015 09:32 AM, Alex Meade wrote:
I don't know if this is really a big problem. IMO, even with
microversions you shouldn't be implementing things that
Manila recently implemented microversions, copying the implementation
from Nova. I really like the feature! However I noticed that it's legal
for clients to transmit latest instead of a real version number.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA!
I recommend removing support for latest and forcing clients
On 8/27/2015 2:38 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote:
Manila recently implemented microversions, copying the implementation
from Nova. I really like the feature! However I noticed that it's legal
for clients to transmit latest instead of a real version number.
THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA!
I recommend
10 matches
Mail list logo
