Open Stack

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Ildikó Váncsa <ildiko.vancsa at ericsson.com>
wrote:

>  Hi All,
>
>
>
> I missed the original thread with the registration to this list, so I will
> try to summarize my thoughts without history.
>
>
>
> First of all, I support the idea of generating the API Reference from the
> source code as that is the most up to date source of information. On the
> other hand it makes much easier not just to create the exact document, but
> keep it up to date, which is unfortunately not true for some of the
> projects that have their API guide in OpenStack Manuals.
>
>
>
> As for the format and placement, I think it can be an experimental process
> as it is described in the corresponding blueprint. As there are still
> projects, which have their API documentation in the project tree it shows
> that it is a viable solution too to put more responsibility on the project
> teams as opposed to leaving all on the documentation team, which has
> limited resources compared to the size of OpenStack at the moment.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned the documentation, which lives together with the code, it
> raised a question for me. The API versioning is not always in line with the
> OpenStack releases neither with the changes on the API. As not every
> project uses micro versioning or any kind of markup, which shows the
> changes, it can mean that the v2 version of an API contains less endpoints
> in let’s Juno, than in Kilo. If we document and update the API Reference
> based only on API versions, then we miss to capture the difference between
> the functionality covered in the different OpenStack releases. In case of
> those projects, which maintains their documentation together with the code
> base this should not be an issue, as the documentation is frozen on the
> stable branches, when those are cut from master. What do you think about
> this aspect? Is there a plan to address this issue too?
>

Great point Ildiko. I need to be clear in the spec that the intent is to
have a "Kilo" Dev Guide, a "Juno" Dev Guide, probably just maintaining 2
releases at a time (rather than the 3 that are security-supported). I think
it'll have to lag a release behind, so that Dev Guides are only available
for already-released services.

To keep the scope sane, I likely will start with Images v2.x API only. I'm
reaching out to that team to see if that's feasible.

So it's not about the projects microversioning each resource call
necessarily but about documenting "what can I do with a Juno-based cloud as
an app dev" -- and document ways to self-discover that also. In your case,
how would I know what calls are available in Juno, use stable branches? I
guess I point the autodoc tool at the stable branch. Hm, this might mean
some backported strings.

Each resource should have some indicator in the docs whether it's available
on Juno or Kilo, also. That's what's tougher for some APIs than others,
right?

I really want to get the proof-of-concept robust enough to matter, so
thanks for bringing up the versioning implications.

Anne


>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ildiko
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-docs mailing list
> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
>


-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20150507/9c2e4999/attachment.html>