On 12/02/2013 10:33 AM, Monty Taylor wrote: > Just because I'd like to argue - if what we do here is an actual > forklift, do we really need a cycle of deprecation? > > The reason I ask is that this is, on first stab, not intended to be a > service that has user-facing API differences. It's a reorganization of > code from one repo into a different one. It's very strongly designed to > not be different. It's not even adding a new service like conductor was > - it's simply moving the repo where the existing service is held. > > Why would we need/want to deprecate? I say that if we get the code > ectomied and working before nova feature freeze, that we elevate the new > nova repo and delete the code from nova. Process for process sake here > I'm not sure gets us anywhere.
That makes sense to me, actually. I suppose part of the issue is that we're not positive how much work will happen to the code *after* the forklift. Will we have other services integrated? Will it have its own database? How different is different enough to warrant needing a deprecation cycle? -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
