Christopher Yeoh wrote: > I don't want to cause issues for the CD people, but perhaps it won't be > too disruptive for them (some direct feedback would be handy). The > initial backwards incompatible change did not result in any bug reports > coming back to us at all. If there were lots of users using it I think > we could have expected some complaints as they would have had to adapt > their programs to no longer manually add the flavor access (otherwise > that would fail). It is of course possible that new programs written in > the meantime would rely on the new behaviour. > > I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) the public CD clouds don't > expose that part of API to their users so the fallout could be quite > limited. Some opinions from those who do CD for private clouds would be > very useful. I'll send an email to openstack-operators asking what > people there believe the impact would be but at the moment I'm thinking > that revert is the way we should go. > >> Could we consider a middle road? What if we made the extension >> silently tolerate an add-myself operation to a flavor, (potentially >> only) right after create? Yes, that's another change, but it means >> that old clients (like horizon) will continue to work, and new >> clients (which expect to automatically get access) will continue to >> work. We can document in the release notes that we made the change to >> match our docs, and that anyone that *depends* on the (admittedly >> weird) behavior of the old broken extension, where a user doesn't >> retain access to flavors they create, may need to tweak their client >> to remove themselves after create. > > My concern is that we'd be digging ourselves an even deeper hole with > that approach. That for some reason we don't really understand at the > moment, people have programs which rely on adding flavor access to a > tenant which is already on the access list being rejected rather than > silently accepted. And I'm not sure its the behavior from flavor access > that we actually want. > > But we certainly don't want to end up in the situation of trying to > work out how to rollback two backwards incompatible API changes.
My vote still goes to reverting, for all the reasons Chris just exposed. I could live with the middle road though... My main concern is to avoid breaking release followers with an issue we detected pre-release. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
