Open Stack

+1. I'd like to leave it experimental as well. I think the task work is important to the future of nova-api and I'd like to make sure we're not rushing anything. We're going to need to live with old API versions for a long time, so it's important that we get it right. I'm also not convinced there's a compelling enough reason for one to move to v3 as it is. Extension versioning is important, but I'm not sure it can't be backported to v2 in the meantime.

- Chris

> On Feb 19, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> The v3 API effort has been going for a few release cycles now.  As we
> approach the Icehouse release, we are faced with the following question:
> "Is it time to mark v3 stable?"
> 
> My opinion is that I think we need to leave v3 marked as experimental
> for Icehouse.
> 
> There are a number of reasons for this:
> 
> 1) Discussions about the v2 and v3 APIs at the in-person Nova meetup
> last week made me come to the realization that v2 won't be going away
> *any* time soon.  In some cases, users have long term API support
> expectations (perhaps based on experience with EC2).  In the best case,
> we have to get all of the SDKs updated to the new API, and then get to
> the point where everyone is using a new enough version of all of these
> SDKs to use the new API.  I don't think that's going to be quick.
> 
> We really don't want to be in a situation where we're having to force
> any sort of migration to a new API.  The new API should be compelling
> enough that everyone *wants* to migrate to it.  If that's not the case,
> we haven't done our job.
> 
> 2) There's actually quite a bit still left on the existing v3 todo list.
> We have some notes here:
> 
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/NovaV3APIDoneCriteria
> 
> One thing is nova-network support.  Since nova-network is still not
> deprecated, we certainly can't deprecate the v2 API without nova-network
> support in v3.  We removed it from v3 assuming nova-network would be
> deprecated in time.
> 
> Another issue is that we discussed the tasks API as the big new API
> feature we would include in v3.  Unfortunately, it's not going to be
> complete for Icehouse.  It's possible we may have some initial parts
> merged, but it's much smaller scope than what we originally envisioned.
> Without this, I honestly worry that there's not quite enough compelling
> functionality yet to encourage a lot of people to migrate.
> 
> 3) v3 has taken a lot more time and a lot more effort than anyone
> thought.  This makes it even more important that we're not going to need
> a v4 any time soon.  Due to various things still not quite wrapped up,
> I'm just not confident enough that what we have is something we all feel
> is Nova's API of the future.
> 
> 
> Let's all take some time to reflect on what has happened with v3 so far
> and what it means for how we should move forward.  We can regroup for Juno.
> 
> Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has helped with the effort
> so far.  Many hours have been put in to code and reviews for this.  I
> would like to specifically thank Christopher Yeoh for his work here.
> Chris has done an *enormous* amount of work on this and deserves credit
> for it.  He has taken on a task much bigger than anyone anticipated.
> Thanks, Chris!
> 
> -- 
> Russell Bryant
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev