Open Stack

2015-06-25 17:25 GMT+09:00 Lucas Alvares Gomes <lucasagomes at gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
>> If renaming "Ironic" to the other, is it still necessary to keep the
>> name in the header?
>> There are some projects which are already renamed like Neutron, Zaqar
>> and the others.
>> So "OpenStack-API-Version" which doesn't contain project name seems
>> reasonable for me.
>
> I don't think we should make decisions base on those cases, these are
> exceptions.

I don't think so.
Renames of projects have already happened too many time even if we can
say "they are exceptions".
In big tent, the renames will happen more.

> But even if it happens the name in the header is the least
> problematic thing. When a project is renamed, apart from the massive
> refactor in the code other things have to change, packaging, service
> files, etc...

Internal implementation(like packaging, service files, directory
structures, etc) is not matter for end users at all.
API header is an interface between services to end users.
The area of influence of API header is much bigger than the implementation.

Now I can see the first Jay's point.
Yeah, Nova and Ironic are implementations, and we cannot say "The
implementation rename never happens." because Neutron has happened.

> For the headers you could have both, one with the old
> name and one with the new name for a while to give people time to
> migrate and then remove the old name. Just like deprecating other
> stuff, e.g a configuration option.

That seems painful to end users.
So what is disagreeing point against "OpenStack-API-Version" here?

Thanks
Ken Ohmichi