Open Stack

> So whilst we still have extensions (and that's a separate debate) we
> need versioning on a per extension basis. Otherwise people are forced 
> to upgrade their extensions in lockstep with each other. 

I think that some people would argue that requiring the extensions to go
together linearly is a good thing, from the point of view of a
consistent API. I'm not sure how I feel about that, actually, but I
think that's a different discussion.

However, what I think I really want, which I mentioned in IRC after I
sent this was: using something like servers:version=2. That could be
namespaced by extension, or we could define boxes of functionality that
go together, like core:version=1, volume-stuff:version=1, etc.

--Dan