Yes, S3 tech preview is REST. -----Original Message----- From: Sebastien Goasguen [mailto:run...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:59 AM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: documentation of tech previews
On Nov 16, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > I'm sure you mean the Query API and not the REST API. In fact, there > is no REST API for AWS. Yes my mistake. I meant Query API. Thought the S3 tech preview is REST, correct ? > > On 11/16/12 6:50 AM, "Chip Childers" <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: > >> Let me clarify what I was trying to say: >> >> IMO, we should have documentation for features that live in the >> master branch. If they are broken, then we should document where and >> how they are broken (or, more preferably, fix them). But if the code >> is in the branch, and can be accessed, there's no reason to avoid it >> going into the docs. >> >> Right now, master is tied to our next feature release. So to me, I >> wouldn't remove any docs that are there. If we have a functional >> issue (examples include Nexus1000v and OVM support), I'd rather >> everyone focus on fixing those issues. >> >> Anyway, just my 2 cents. >> >> -chip >> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Chip Childers >> <chip.child...@sungard.com> wrote: >>> Master is for the next release anyway! >>> >>> - chip >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone. >>> >>> On Nov 16, 2012, at 7:41 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012, at 03:35 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: >>>>> Jessica and I are having a discussion on >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-464 . >>>>> >>>>> At the core of the discussion is a question regarding the >>>>> documentation of features that are still in development. >>>>> In that particular bug, the core issue is that I talked about the >>>>> REST interface in the AWSAPI docs. >>>>> >>>>> I would like to get feedback and advice from the community on >>>>> whether we should document features / code / tools that may be >>>>> viewed as work in progress or tech previews. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>> If we're shipping it, in any form, it's appropriate to document it. >>>> If we know it's a WIP or "tech preview" then it should be labeled >>>> as such in the docs with the warning that it may change in later versions. >>>> >>>>> For instance, in addition to the REST interface for ec2 and s3 >>>>> (totally undocumented in the docs), I was going to start working >>>>> on some introductory documentation for devcloud, marvin and >>>>> cloudmonkey. >>>>> >>>>> The wiki is nice for these but I believe they should start being >>>>> documented in the official docs. We can add proper warning to >>>>> users, explaining that they are still under development but that >>>>> they can expect to see more complete features in the future. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Joe Brockmeier >>>> j...@zonker.net >>>> Twitter: @jzb >>>> http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ >>>> >
