Open Stack

On 02/24/2014 08:31 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:17:34 -0500
> Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/24/2014 06:13 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>> On 02/24/2014 04:59 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, that begs a new approach. Because I think at this point even
>>>> if we did put out Nova v3, there can never be a v4. It's too much,
>>>> too big, and doesn't fit in the incremental nature of the project.
>>>
>>> Does it necessarily need to be that way though?  Maybe we bump the
>>> version number every time we make a non-backwards-compatible change,
>>> even if it's just removing an API call that has been deprecated for
>>> a while.
>>
>> So I'm not sure how this is different than the keep v2 and use
>> microversioning suggestion that is already in this thread.
> 
> For non backwards compatible changes I think the difference is in how
> the user accesses the API. When only make major changes when bumping
> the major version then they know for sure that if they access
> 
> /v3/foo
> 
> then they're app will work. If /v3 doesn't exist then they know it's
> not supported.
> 
> Whereas if we make backwards incompatible changes within a major
> version then they have to start checking the microversion first.

<snip>

A point of clarification on the micro-version idea.  IMO, the only
changes acceptable under such a scheme are backwards compatible ones.

-- 
Russell Bryant