On 18 February 2016 at 17:58, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 02/18/2016 12:17 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: >> Clarifying: >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:32 AM Sean Dague <s...@dague.net >> <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: >> >> Ok, to make sure we all ended up on the same page at the end of this >> discussion, this is what I think I heard. >> >> 1) oslo.config is about to release with a feature that will make adding >> config to paste.ini not needed (i.e. >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/265415/ is no longer needed). >> >> >> I will need help to do this. More below. >> >> >> 2) ideally the cors middleware will have sane defaults for that set of >> headers in oslo.config. >> >> >> I'd like to make sure we agree on what "Sane defaults" means here. By >> design, the CORS middleware is generic, and only explicitly includes the >> headers prescribed in the w3c spec. It should not include any >> additional headers, for reasons of downstream non-openstack consumers. >> >> >> 3) projects should be able to apply new defaults for these options in >> their codebase through a default override process (that is now nicely >> documented somewhere... url?) >> >> >> New sample defaults for the generated configuration files, they should >> not live anywhere else. The CORS middleware should, if we go this path, >> be little more than a true-to-spec implementation, with config files >> that extend it for the appropriate API. >> >> The big question I now have is: What do we do with respect to the mitaka >> freeze? >> >> Option 1: Implement as is, keep things consistent, fix them in Newton. > > The problem with Option 1 is that it's not fixable in Newton. It > requires fixing for the next 3 releases as you have to deprecate out > bits in paste.ini, make middleware warn for removal first soft, then > hard, explain the config migration. Once this lands in the wild the > unwind is very long and involved. > > Which is why I -1ed the patch. Because the fix in newton isn't a revert.
+1 on the upgrade impact being a blocker. Certainly for all folks meeting these: https://governance.openstack.org/reference/tags/assert_supports-upgrade.html#requirements This will require lots of folks to pitch in a help, and bend the process a touch. But that seems way more reasonable than dragging our users through that headache. Thanks, John __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
