Open Stack

Hi all,

IMHO  deprecation warning should be added only to commands that we recently
changed (because users can switch to new interface when they see
deprecation error) or eventually solution #2 sounds ok but is not ideal
because people can forget about warning that they saw in previous release.
Also we discuss 4th solution, simply we should inform users about
deprecation of client and encourage users to use fuel_v2 client with new
commands and parameters.

Best regards,
Kamil Sambor

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Przemyslaw Kaminski <pkaminski at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Maybe add a Changelog in the repo and maintain it?
>
> http://keepachangelog.com/
>
> Option #2 is OK but it can cause pain when testing -- upon each fresh
> installation from ISO we would get that message and it might break some
> tests though that is fixable. Option #3 is OK too. #1 is worst and I
> wouldn't do it.
>
> Or maybe display that info when showing all the commands (typing 'fuel'
> or 'fuel -h')? We already have a deprecation warning there concerning
> client/config.yaml, it is not very disturbing and shouldn't break any
> currently used automation scripts.
>
> P.
>
>
> On 03/03/2015 03:52 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko wrote:
> > Hi folks!
> >
> >
> > According to the refactoring plan [1] we are going to release the 6.1
> version of python-fuelclient which is going to contain recent changes but
> will keep backwards compatibility with what was before. However, the next
> major release will bring users the fresh CLI that won’t be compatible with
> the old one and the new, actually usable IRL API library that also will be
> different.
> >
> > The issue this message is about is the fact that there is a strong need
> to let both CLI and API users about those changes. At the moment I can see
> 3 ways of resolving it:
> >
> > 1. Show deprecation warning for commands and parameters which are going
> to be different. Log deprecation warnings for deprecated library methods.
> > The problem with this approach is that the structure of both CLI and the
> library will be changed, so deprecation warning will be raised for mostly
> every command for the whole release cycle. That does not look very user
> friendly, because users will have to run all commands with --quiet for the
> whole release cycle to mute deprecation warnings.
> >
> > 2. Show the list o the deprecated stuff and planned changes on the first
> run. Then mute it.
> > The disadvantage of this approach if that there is a need of storing the
> info about the first run to a file. However, it may be cleaned after the
> upgrade.
> >
> > 3. The same as #2 but publish the warning online.
> >
> > I personally prefer #2, but I’d like to get more opinions on this topic.
> >
> >
> > References:
> >
> > 1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/re-thinking-fuel-client
> >
> >
> > - romcheg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150304/4e7ac021/attachment.html>