Good discussion guys. Given the date, I agree this doesn't seem like a Bexar thing.
Clearly, I'm going to need to wrap my head around comparing 1.0 to 1.1 details. My obvious fear, as an API consumer, is when adopting changes involves a large engineering effort. A point release says to me "Meh, this won't be a big deal to move up to." ... ideally, this is the case. Thanks again for the prompt feedback! -S ________________________________________ From: openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace....@lists.launchpad.net [openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace....@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 7:28 AM To: Thierry Carrez Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] [RFC] OpenStack API On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > John Purrier wrote: >> 1. Bexar will present a version 1.0 OpenStack API based on the 1.0 >> Rackspace Cloud Servers API. The OpenStack namespace will be set up and >> published, and tools will be available that manipulate Nova via the >> OpenStack API. Any functionality that is not yet implemented will be >> documented in the developer’s guide. >> [...] >> >> Rick/Thierry, if we have work items for Bexar that are not covered in >> order to complete this plan let’s highlight them ASAP. Also, can we >> verify that the management tools are in progress? > > >From where I stand, there were no discussions around this subject at the > design summit, and no blueprints filed about API coverage or > command-line tools... so I assume nobody is actually working > specifically on that. If I'm wrong and someone owns this, please let me > know. > > The Bexar development window is now closing (January 6th is > BranchMergeProposalFreeze), so the Bexar objectives sound a bit > optimistic. How about making sure we have a plan and the resources > assigned to execute it during the Cactus timeframe ? ++ I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is realistic to do API extensions for Bexar. As Thierry said, no blueprints were filed at the summit on API extension, no discussions occurred at the summit about it, and although Andy has some example/prototype code, I'm sure he would admit that his code was meant, at least so far, to spur discussion and not necessarily be merged into trunk right away. I concur with Thierry that Cactus would be a better timeframe for implementing API extensibility. It would allow for the proper amount of discussion on this topic to occur. -jay _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message. Your cooperation is appreciated. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
