Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xu, Hejie [mailto:hejie.xu at intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 3:34 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for api bug
> fix or not?
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jens Rosenboom [mailto:j.rosenboom at x-ion.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 2:17 PM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][api] New micro-version needed for
> > api bug fix or not?
> >
> > 2015-06-01 13:40 GMT+02:00 John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com>:
> > > On 31 May 2015 at 14:15, Xu, Hejie <hejie.xu at intel.com> wrote:
> > >> Replied in line with prefix [alex]
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > ...
> > >> 2)
> > >> We also agreed that all micro version bumps need a spec, to help
> > >> avoid is
> > adding more "bad" things to the API as we try and move forward.
> > >> This is heavy weight. In time, we might find certain "good"
> > >> patterns where
> > we want to relax that restriction, but we haven't done enough changes
> > to agree on those patterns yet. This will mean we are moving a bit
> > slower at first, but it feels like the right trade off against
> > releasing (i.e. something that lands in any commit on master) an API
> > with a massive bug we have to support for a long time.
> > >>
> > >> [alex]: For this case, do we need register a blueprint for it?
> > >> Maybe we just
> > reference the bug in the nova-spec is enough.
> > >
> > > Right now, we have said everything needs a spec. They can be a very,
> > > very, short spec.
> > >
> > > It might become clear there are some places we should skip this, as
> > > clear patterns emerge.
> > > But as we consider every commit a "release", this is very dangerous,
> > > hence the caution we are applying here.
> >
> > So I have now submitted a spec proposal at
> > https://review.openstack.org/187835 and added the microversion to
> > https://review.openstack.org/179569.
> >
> > I'm wondering though whether the current API behaviour here should be
> > changed more generally. Is there a plausible reason to silently
> > discard options that are not allowed for non-admins? For me it would
> > make more sense to return an error in that case.
> 
> Most of web server ignore the extra query string. If this isn't enable for current
> user, then it is non-exist for current user. Does make sense? This should be
> something we doc in the api-wg guideline.

Just send out https://review.openstack.org/187903

> 
> >
> >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > __________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> > OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> __________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev