Open Stack

On 05/30/2016 10:05 PM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote:
> I think it is good to share codes and a single microversion can make
> life more easier during coding.
> Can we approve those specs first and then decide on the details in IRC
> and patch review? Because
> the non-priority spec deadline is so close.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 1:09 AM, Ken'ichi Ohmichi <ken1ohmichi at gmail.com
> <mailto:ken1ohmichi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     2016-05-29 19:25 GMT-07:00 Alex Xu <soulxu at gmail.com
>     <mailto:soulxu at gmail.com>>:
>     >
>     >
>     > 2016-05-20 20:05 GMT+08:00 Sean Dague <sean at dague.net <mailto:sean at dague.net>>:
>     >>
>     >> There are a number of changes up for spec reviews that add parameters to
>     >> LIST interfaces in Newton:
>     >>
>     >> * keypairs-pagination (MERGED) -
>     >>
>     >> https://github.com/openstack/nova-specs/blob/8d16fc11ee6d01b5a9fe1b8b7ab7fa6dff460e2a/specs/newton/approved/keypairs-pagination.rst#L2
>     >> * os-instances-actions - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240401/
>     >> * hypervisors - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/240401/
>     >> * os-migrations - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/239869/
>     >>
>     >> I think that limit / marker is always a legit thing to add, and I almost
>     >> wish we just had a single spec which is "add limit / marker to the
>     >> following APIs in Newton"
>     >>
>     >
>     > Are you looking for code sharing or one microversion? For code sharing, it
>     > sounds ok if people have some co-work. Probably we need a common pagination
>     > supported model_query function for all of those. For one microversion, i'm a
>     > little hesitate, we should keep one small change, or enable all in one
>     > microversion. But if we have some base code for pagination support, we
>     > probably can make the pagination as default thing support for all list
>     > method?
> 
>     It is nice to share some common code for this, that would be nice for
>     writing the api doc also to know what APIs support them.
>     And also nice to do it with a single microversion for the above
>     resources, because we can avoid microversion bumping conflict and all
>     of them don't seem a big change.

There is already common code for limit / marker.

I don't think these all need to be one microversion, they are honestly
easier to review if they are not.

However in future we should probably make 1 spec for all limit / marker
adds during a cycle. Just because the answer will be *yes* and seems
like more work to have everything be a dedicated spec.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net