Open Stack

Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> On 3/29/17 12:55 AM, Jimmy McArthur wrote:
> [snip]
>> What we really need is the following:
>>
>> * A project history, including the date of project inception that's
>> included in the TC tags.
>> * An API history in an easily digestible format that all projects share.
>> So whether you're doing micro releases or not, just something that
>> allows us to show, based on a release timeline, which API versions per
>> project are applicable for each OpenStack release. This really needs to
>> be consistent from project to project b/c at the moment everyone handles
>> it differently.
> 
> See what you think of these.  They add an "apis" section to the glance
> section of projects.yaml in the governance repo.
> 
> http://paste.openstack.org/show/604775/ has a complete history, where
> for each release, the complete set of versions of the API that are
> available in that release (and their statuses) are listed.
> 
> http://paste.openstack.org/show/604776/ has an abbreviated history,
> where only the changes in available APIs are listed from version to
> version, and if there's no change, the release isn't listed at all.
> 
> I don't know if this format would work for microversions, though.  (And
> I don't know if it's a good idea in the first place.)

I like the idea to provide unified API information, however I'm not sure
the Technical Committee should stand in the way of getting that
information updated. The less we force through strict governance
processes, the better, so everything that can be maintained by some
other group should be.

This is closer to documentation than governance, so I wonder if this
document should not be maintained at the API WG or the Docs team or
service catalog level -- just keeping the same team names so that
information can be easily cross-referenced with the governance repository.

I'll raise the discussion in open discussion at the next TC meeting.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)