Open Stack

On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:31 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Sure, no one has said it. But it seems to be implied, otherwise these
> types of discussions wouldn't occur. Right?

You're assuming the Nova objects API is at a point where the maintainers
of it feel ready to commit to API stability.

Mark.

> On 12/3/13 2:25 PM, "Mark McLoughlin" <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 22:07 +0000, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> >
> >> Process for process sake imho has been a problem for oslo.
> >
> >It's been reiterated many times, but again - the only purpose of
> >oslo-incubator is as a place to evolve an API until we're ready to make
> >a commitment to API stability.
> >
> >It's often easier to start a new API completely standalone, push it to
> >PyPI and plan for API backwards compatibility from the start. No-one has
> >ever said that such APIs need to go through oslo-incubator "for process
> >sake".
> >
> >Mark.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>