On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > Greetings, > > The v3 API effort has been going for a few release cycles now. As we > approach the Icehouse release, we are faced with the following question: > "Is it time to mark v3 stable?" > > My opinion is that I think we need to leave v3 marked as experimental > for Icehouse. > > There are a number of reasons for this: > > 1) Discussions about the v2 and v3 APIs at the in-person Nova meetup > last week made me come to the realization that v2 won't be going away > *any* time soon. In some cases, users have long term API support > expectations (perhaps based on experience with EC2). In the best case, > we have to get all of the SDKs updated to the new API, and then get to > the point where everyone is using a new enough version of all of these > SDKs to use the new API. I don't think that's going to be quick.
Unless we specifically work with SDKs I don't think they will support V3 until we mark it as stable. So I think we are in a bit of a chicken and egg situation. > > We really don't want to be in a situation where we're having to force > any sort of migration to a new API. The new API should be compelling > enough that everyone *wants* to migrate to it. If that's not the case, > we haven't done our job. > > 2) There's actually quite a bit still left on the existing v3 todo list. > We have some notes here: > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/NovaV3APIDoneCriteria > > One thing is nova-network support. Since nova-network is still not > deprecated, we certainly can't deprecate the v2 API without nova-network > support in v3. We removed it from v3 assuming nova-network would be > deprecated in time. > > Another issue is that we discussed the tasks API as the big new API > feature we would include in v3. Unfortunately, it's not going to be > complete for Icehouse. It's possible we may have some initial parts > merged, but it's much smaller scope than what we originally envisioned. > Without this, I honestly worry that there's not quite enough compelling > functionality yet to encourage a lot of people to migrate. > Can we get more people to work in tasks and try to get it out in icehouse? If we want to go back to having only 1 API at a specific release in the future, what about setting a deadline for ourselves to get v3 out in Juno no matter what? > 3) v3 has taken a lot more time and a lot more effort than anyone > thought. This makes it even more important that we're not going to need > a v4 any time soon. Due to various things still not quite wrapped up, > I'm just not confident enough that what we have is something we all feel > is Nova's API of the future. > > > Let's all take some time to reflect on what has happened with v3 so far > and what it means for how we should move forward. We can regroup for Juno. > > Finally, I would like to thank everyone who has helped with the effort > so far. Many hours have been put in to code and reviews for this. I > would like to specifically thank Christopher Yeoh for his work here. > Chris has done an *enormous* amount of work on this and deserves credit > for it. He has taken on a task much bigger than anyone anticipated. > Thanks, Chris! > > -- > Russell Bryant > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
