Open Stack

Good discussion guys. Given the date, I agree this doesn't seem like a Bexar thing.

Clearly, I'm going to need to wrap my head around comparing 1.0 to 1.1 details. 

My obvious fear, as an API consumer, is when adopting changes involves a large engineering effort. A point release says to me "Meh, this won't be a big deal to move up to." ... ideally, this is the case. 

Thanks again for the prompt feedback!

-S

________________________________________
From: openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace.com at lists.launchpad.net [openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace.com at lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of Jay Pipes [jaypipes at gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 7:28 AM
To: Thierry Carrez
Cc: openstack at lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API

On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
> John Purrier wrote:
>> 1.       Bexar will present a version 1.0 OpenStack API based on the 1.0
>> Rackspace Cloud Servers API. The OpenStack namespace will be set up and
>> published, and tools will be available that manipulate Nova via the
>> OpenStack API. Any functionality that is not yet implemented will be
>> documented in the developer’s guide.
>> [...]
>>
>> Rick/Thierry, if we have work items for Bexar that are not covered in
>> order to complete this plan let’s highlight them ASAP. Also, can we
>> verify that the management tools are in progress?
>
> >From where I stand, there were no discussions around this subject at the
> design summit, and no blueprints filed about API coverage or
> command-line tools... so I assume nobody is actually working
> specifically on that. If I'm wrong and someone owns this, please let me
> know.
>
> The Bexar development window is now closing (January 6th is
> BranchMergeProposalFreeze), so the Bexar objectives sound a bit
> optimistic. How about making sure we have a plan and the resources
> assigned to execute it during the Cactus timeframe ?

++

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is realistic to do API extensions
for Bexar.  As Thierry said, no blueprints were filed at the summit on
API extension, no discussions occurred at the summit about it, and
although Andy has some example/prototype code, I'm sure he would admit
that his code was meant, at least so far, to spur discussion and not
necessarily be merged into trunk right away.

I concur with Thierry that Cactus would be a better timeframe for
implementing API extensibility. It would allow for the proper amount
of discussion on this topic to occur.

-jay

_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. 
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail
at abuse at rackspace.com, and delete the original message. 
Your cooperation is appreciated.