On Monday, December 02, 2013 8:38:54 AM, Jonathan Proulx wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we should be blocking them per-se as long as they fit the API
change guidelines https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/APIChangeGuidelines.
Agreed, possibly not what one would assign developers to do but as an
open project if it is important enough to someone that they've already
done the work why not accept the change?
-Jon
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
I +2'ed the patch that I originally referenced, so I'm not blocking
anything. I think the point I'm trying to make is I would hope we
don't end up getting into a (backwards) dual maintenance type of
situation where every low-priority fix that goes into the v3 API makes
someone think that it needs to be backported to the v2 API. I'm
looking at it sort of like backporting patches to stable/havana - sure
Havana could use some bug fixes that are made in Icehouse, but are they
all really *needed*? If there are people willing to do the work and
people willing to review it, sure, go ahead I guess.
Anyway, I was just seeing a trend last week and maybe I was in a
post-drunk-on-turkey stupor and felt I needed to bring it up. I don't
mean for this to be a big deal and I think Chris Yeoh answered it best
so I'm OK with leaving it at that.
--
Thanks,
Matt Riedemann
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
