Open Stack

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Christopher Yeoh <cbkyeoh at gmail.com> 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.
>
>
I agree this sounds like we are just digging the hole deeper.


> 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.
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140321/053e16c7/attachment-0001.html>