Open Stack

> What I'd like to do next is work through a new proposal that includes
> keeping both v2 and v3, but with a new added focus of minimizing the
> cost.  This should include a path away from the dual code bases and to
> something like the "v2.1" proposal.

I think that the most we can hope for is consensus on _something_. So,
the thing that I'm hoping would mostly satisfy the largest number of
people is:

- Leaving v2 and v3 as they are today in the tree, and with v3 still
  marked experimental for the moment
- We start on a v2 proxy to v3, with the first goal of fully
  implementing the v2 API on top of v3, as judged by tempest
- We define the criteria for removing the current v2 code and marking
  the v3 code supported as:
 - The v2 proxy passes tempest
 - The v2 proxy has sign-off from some major deployers as something
   they would be comfortable using in place of the existing v2 code
 - The v2 proxy seems to us to be lower maintenance and otherwise
   preferable to either keeping both, breaking all our users, deleting
   v3 entirely, etc
- We keep this until we either come up with a proxy that works, or
  decide that it's not worth the cost, etc.

I think the list of benefits here are:

- Gives the v3 code a chance to address some of the things we have
  identified as lacking in both trees
- Gives us a chance to determine if the proxy approach is reasonable or
  a nightmare
- Gives a clear go/no-go line in the sand that we can ask deployers to
  critique or approve

It doesn't address all of my concerns, but at the risk of just having
the whole community split over this discussion, I think this is probably
(hopefully?) something we can all get behind.

Thoughts?

--Dan