On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:31:43 -0700 Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Christopher Yeoh <cbky...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > So it turns out that we have made a backwards incompatible change to > > the V2 API in Icehouse. Previously when creating a private flavor > > access was not automatically given to the tenant, now it is. The > > documentation has always said that it was, but we lied. > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/40811/ > > > > > > Backwards compatibility was discussed in this patch and the answer > that we used at the time was: > > "But without this fix the flavor-access mechanism is broken as far as > I can see, and the extra data returned is still compatible with the > API definition I think (Its just that an optional list part that was > always empty before will now have one entry from the start) - so any > code that uses the API really needs to be able to cope with that part > of the result." > > In retrospect I don't think that was a strong enough answer. Yes. I think we've learnt an important lesson here in that its just too hard to accurately predict how disruptive a backwards incompatible change is. There needs to be extremely exceptional circumstances for it to be acceptable. Chris _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
