Open Stack

On 2014年03月21日 17:04, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:45:11 -0700
> Dan Smith <dms at danplanet.com> wrote:
>> I know that our primary delivery mechanism is releases right now, and
>> so if we decide to revert before this gets into a release, that's
>> cool. However, I think we need to be looking at CD as a very important
>> use-case and I don't want to leave those folks out in the cold.
>>
> I don't want to cause issues for the CD people, but perhaps it won't be
> too disruptive for them (some direct feedback would be handy). The
> initial backwards incompatible change did not result in any bug reports
> coming back to us at all. If there were lots of users using it I think
> we could have expected some complaints as they would have had to adapt
> their programs to no longer manually add the flavor access (otherwise
> that would fail). It is of course possible that new programs written in
> the meantime would rely on the new behaviour.
>
> I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) the public CD clouds don't
> expose that part of API to their users so the fallout could be quite
> limited. Some opinions from those who do CD for private clouds would be
> very useful. I'll send an email to openstack-operators asking what
> people there believe the impact would be but at the moment I'm thinking
> that revert is the way we should go.
>
>> Could we consider a middle road? What if we made the extension
>> silently tolerate an add-myself operation to a flavor, (potentially
>> only) right after create? Yes, that's another change, but it means
>> that old clients (like horizon) will continue to work, and new
>> clients (which expect to automatically get access) will continue to
>> work. We can document in the release notes that we made the change to
>> match our docs, and that anyone that *depends* on the (admittedly
>> weird) behavior of the old broken extension, where a user doesn't
>> retain access to flavors they create, may need to tweak their client
>> to remove themselves after create.
> My concern is that we'd be digging ourselves an even deeper hole with
> that approach. That for some reason we don't really understand at the
> moment, people have programs which rely on adding flavor access to a
> tenant which is already on the access list being rejected rather than
> silently accepted. And I'm not sure its the behavior from flavor access
> that we actually want.
>
> But we certainly don't want to end up in the situation of trying to
> work out how to rollback two backwards incompatible API changes.

I vote to revert also. If we promise api stable before release, that 
means we can't
make any mistake in the review. We should think about whether we promise 
something
before release.

If we really want to keep this. There is antoher road. Add an extension 
for this change, just
like extend_quotas extension. It's disabled by default. If any 
deployment depend on that change,
admin can enable it.
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>