[openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 13:52:16 UTC 2014

On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 05:43 +0000, Kenichi Oomichi wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Smith [mailto:dms at danplanet.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:09 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Concrete Proposal for Keeping V2 API
> > 
> > > 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
> Thanks, Dan.
> The above criteria is reasonable to me.
> Now Tempest does not check API responses in many cases.
> For example, Tempest does not check what API attributes("flavor", "image",
> etc.) should be included in the response body of "create a server" API.
> So we need to improve Tempest coverage from this viewpoint for verifying
> any backward incompatibility does not happen on v2.1 API.
> We started this improvement for Tempest and have proposed some patches
> for it now.

Kenichi-san, you may also want to check out this ML post from David



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list