Open Stack

Hi folks,

Recently, I've been thinking more of how users of our python client
will interact with the service, and in particular, how they might
expect different instances of Ironic to behave.

We added several extensions to the API this cycle, and along with
that, also landed microversion support (I'll say more on that in
another thread). However, I don't feel like we've collectively given
nearly enough thought to the python client. It seems to work well
enough for our CI testing, but is that really enough? What about user
experience?

In my own testing of the client versioning patch that landed on
Friday, I noticed some pretty appalling errors (some unrelated to that
patch) when pointing the current client at a server running the
stable/juno code...

http://paste.openstack.org/show/u91DtCf0fwRyv0auQWpx/


I haven't filed specific bugs from yet this because I think the issue
is large enough that we should talk about a plan first. I think that
starts by agreeing on who the intended audience is and what level of
forward-and-backward compatibility we are going to commit to [*],
documenting that agreement, and then come up with a plan to deliver
that during the L cycle. I'd like to start the discussion now, so I
have put it on the agenda for Monday, but I also expect it will be a
topic at the Vancouver summit.

-Devananda


[*] full disclosure

I believe we have to commit to building a client that works well with
every release since Icehouse, and the changes we've introduced in the
client in this cycle do not.