| *** adjohn has quit IRC | 00:02 | |
| *** bengrue has quit IRC | 00:10 | |
| *** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting | 00:28 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 00:31 | |
| *** cdub has quit IRC | 00:33 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 01:24 | |
| *** mmetheny_ has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** mmetheny has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:28 | |
| *** jdurgin has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** gyee has quit IRC | 01:32 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 01:42 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 01:52 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 02:17 | |
| *** reed has quit IRC | 02:50 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:01 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:02 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:05 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:06 | |
| *** ttx has quit IRC | 03:07 | |
| *** rohitk has quit IRC | 03:09 | |
| *** rohitk has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:17 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:18 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:18 | |
| *** rohit-karajgi has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:22 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 03:23 | |
| *** rohitk has quit IRC | 03:24 | |
| *** rohit-karajgi has quit IRC | 03:27 | |
| *** sleepsontheflo-1 has quit IRC | 03:27 | |
| *** rohitk has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:28 | |
| *** rohitk has quit IRC | 03:39 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:46 | |
| *** ttx has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:49 | |
| *** ttx has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:49 | |
| *** jog0_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 03:51 | |
| *** jog0_ has quit IRC | 04:00 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:01 | |
| *** jog0 has left #openstack-meeting | 04:01 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:12 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 04:29 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:30 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 04:34 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 04:45 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:46 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 04:48 | |
| *** jakedahn has joined #openstack-meeting | 04:49 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has quit IRC | 05:10 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:20 | |
| *** sleepsontheflo-1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 05:30 | |
| *** jakedahn has quit IRC | 05:55 | |
| *** tsuzuki_ has quit IRC | 06:34 | |
| *** darraghb has joined #openstack-meeting | 09:15 | |
| *** AntoniHP has left #openstack-meeting | 09:49 | |
| *** dricco has left #openstack-meeting | 10:00 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 10:32 | |
| *** shang has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:02 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 11:13 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 11:25 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 11:58 | |
| *** shang has quit IRC | 12:29 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:28 | |
| *** mmetheny has quit IRC | 13:28 | |
| *** mmetheny has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:28 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 13:41 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 13:41 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 13:58 | |
| *** joesavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:00 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:04 | |
| *** mattray has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:08 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:37 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 14:38 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 14:41 | |
| *** dragondm has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:42 | |
| *** gyee has joined #openstack-meeting | 14:57 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:03 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:04 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 15:07 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:13 | |
| *** rnirmal has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:16 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:36 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 15:43 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:53 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:53 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 15:58 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 15:58 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:00 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:01 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:06 | |
| *** jsavak has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:10 | |
| *** joesavak has quit IRC | 16:13 | |
| *** sleepsontheflo-1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:14 | |
| *** Gordonz has quit IRC | 16:20 | |
| *** Gordonz has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:25 | |
| *** df1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:27 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:30 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:36 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:37 | |
| *** jdurgin has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:41 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:42 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:43 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:45 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:46 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:48 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 16:50 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 16:58 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 16:58 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:08 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 17:12 | |
| *** bengrue has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:16 | |
| *** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:16 | |
| *** bcwaldon has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:18 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:22 | |
| *** cdub has quit IRC | 17:25 | |
| *** df1 has quit IRC | 17:26 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:34 | |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| *** jog0 has quit IRC | 17:40 | |
| *** jog0 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:40 | |
| *** jorgew has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:40 | |
| *** jog0 has left #openstack-meeting | 17:41 | |
| *** vladimir3p has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:44 | |
| *** df1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:51 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 17:58 | |
| bcwaldon | Hello! | 18:01 |
|---|---|---|
| vishy | hi | 18:02 |
| bcwaldon | Looks like its just the two of us | 18:02 |
| westmaas | hello | 18:02 |
| jorgew | Hey guys | 18:02 |
| bcwaldon | I'm going to wait a few more minutes in the hope that somebody else will join | 18:03 |
| bcwaldon | If not, this meeting is going to be easy | 18:03 |
| *** renuka has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:03 | |
| bcwaldon | well, I guess we should go over what we have | 18:05 |
| bcwaldon | #startmeeting | 18:05 |
| openstack | Meeting started Fri Nov 4 18:05:23 2011 UTC. The chair is bcwaldon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:05 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. | 18:05 |
| bcwaldon | #topic Future Meetings | 18:05 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Future Meetings" | 18:05 | |
| * ttx lurks | 18:05 | |
| bcwaldon | Should we set up a recurring meeting time? | 18:05 |
| bcwaldon | Without much representation from 'nova-api' proper, it's hard to make this decision | 18:06 |
| westmaas | maybe set some goals, and then decide if meetings help us accomplish those goals | 18:06 |
| xtoddx | +1 westmaas | 18:07 |
| bcwaldon | Sounds good | 18:07 |
| jorgew | Can you elloborate a bit about what the purpose of the meeting will be? I think that will help answes the question | 18:07 |
| bcwaldon | like gabe said, how about we define what the purpose of this team is | 18:07 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: can you help with that? You did set it up | 18:07 |
| ttx | was wondering if we needed two API teams (EC2 vs. OSAPI) | 18:07 |
| ttx | I know some people are lined up to form an EC2 API maintenance team | 18:07 |
| jorgew | ttx: probably | 18:07 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: do you see that living under the same umbrella ? | 18:08 |
| bcwaldon | ttx: not really, I'd think it would be a different team | 18:08 |
| vishy | ttx: i think ec2 team should be separate | 18:08 |
| westmaas | if the ec2 work will be around keeping up with whatever ec2 is as of today + making improvements to stability of that system, it makes sense to be separate | 18:08 |
| ttx | bcwaldon: ok then, team renaming will be needed to avoid confusion | 18:08 |
| bcwaldon | ok, sounds like that's an easy decision to make | 18:09 |
| ttx | westmaas: yes | 18:09 |
| jorgew | +1 on that | 18:09 |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 18:09 | |
| vishy | #info ec2 api team should be separate | 18:09 |
| bcwaldon | #action vishy to identify and set up ec2-specific api team | 18:09 |
| bcwaldon | you just have so many good ideas | 18:09 |
| westmaas | you've been actioned | 18:09 |
| vishy | so i think this team has 2 goals: | 18:10 |
| vishy | 1) figure out what the api is going to look like in essex | 18:10 |
| vishy | 2) manage blueprints and work to get there | 18:10 |
| vishy | with maybe a 3) cleanup and stabilize existing code? | 18:11 |
| vishy | since a lot of the api blueprints relate to that as well | 18:11 |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:11 | |
| jorgew | Can I suggest that we focus on nova specific concerns versus cross cutting concers..as those way involve other teams. | 18:11 |
| westmaas | jorgew: can you give an example of what you mean? | 18:12 |
| vishy | we aren't planning on discussing other projects afaik | 18:12 |
| *** nati2_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:12 | |
| westmaas | oh, nvm, I think I get it | 18:12 |
| jorgew | So for example versioning, content nagotiation, etc | 18:12 |
| bcwaldon | Should we also point out that 'api' in this team's context doesn't mean service api, but specifically public-facing api (OpenStack Compute API)? | 18:12 |
| vishy | yes | 18:12 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: I think part of this team's responsibility is to drive those decisions based on what we need in Nova | 18:13 |
| vishy | jorgew: I think we have to discuss versioning a bit in the context of nova | 18:13 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: So we won't discuss Admin API issues? | 18:13 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: I think that can fall under this team | 18:13 |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 18:13 | |
| vishy | adminapi is included imo | 18:13 |
| bcwaldon | I'd say this is an 'all public apis' team (except ec2) | 18:14 |
| DuncanT | Is there any place to discuss internal/service apis, other than with the individual components? | 18:14 |
| vishy | DuncanT: it depends on what you mean. IMO a service api is a public api | 18:14 |
| jorgew | Fair enough, all I'm saying is that one of the goals that's been discussed on the APIs is consistency with other teams, I think we should strive for that. | 18:14 |
| vishy | so adminapi falls in that category | 18:14 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: sure, but consistency doesn't mean blindly following a precedent : | 18:15 |
| bcwaldon | :) | 18:15 |
| vishy | DuncanT: if you mean message structure in rabbit queues etc. we haven't defined a place for that. | 18:15 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: agreed. I'm just saying we should span the conversation to other teams when we talk about those sort of issues | 18:15 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: care to switch the topic? | 18:15 |
| DuncanT | vishy: Ok, cheers | 18:15 |
| bcwaldon | #topic Team Definition | 18:15 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Team Definition" | 18:15 | |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: absolutely agree | 18:16 |
| jorgew | cool | 18:16 |
| bcwaldon | Ok, so it sounds like we've got enough here to define what this team is going to do | 18:16 |
| bcwaldon | With that in mind, do we feel like having recurring status/plan-of-attack meetings would help with that? | 18:16 |
| vishy | #info Team is for public and private rest apis | 18:16 |
| bcwaldon | http apis | 18:17 |
| vishy | #info Team is for public and private http apis (excluding compatibility apis) | 18:17 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: ++ | 18:17 |
| bcwaldon | I'm going to assume yes to my question unless somebody speaks up | 18:18 |
| jorgew | I'm sorry what was the question again? :-) | 18:18 |
| bcwaldon | With that in mind, do we feel like having recurring status/plan-of-attack meetings would help with that? | 18:18 |
| vishy | I think recurring meetings would be good | 18:18 |
| bcwaldon | Ok, I think we'll have to decide timing based on a convo on the list, we don't have great representation here | 18:19 |
| bcwaldon | #action bcwaldon to send summary email to the list mentioning meeting times | 18:19 |
| bcwaldon | moving on | 18:19 |
| bcwaldon | #topic Blueprint triaging | 18:19 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Blueprint triaging" | 18:19 | |
| bcwaldon | #link https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~nova-api | 18:19 |
| bcwaldon | I also think there are a couple that don't actually apply to us: glance-zones and formalized-message-structures. | 18:20 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: you assigned them, why do you think those two BPs apply to this team | 18:20 |
| *** reed has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:20 | |
| vishy | bcwaldon: fair enough. I didn't have a good place to put them | 18:20 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:20 | |
| vishy | kick them back if you want | 18:20 |
| bcwaldon | ok, I'll just unassign them | 18:20 |
| bcwaldon | So I was hoping to identify who could actually take these blueprints on | 18:21 |
| bcwaldon | but again, not enough devs here | 18:21 |
| bcwaldon | Does anybody have any thoughts on these blueprints? | 18:21 |
| jorgew | Does'n glance-zones touch the API…"how we generate unique integer IDs for images to comply with the OS API 1.x spec" | 18:21 |
| vishy | i assigned it back to rick for now | 18:21 |
| vishy | he might have some ideas of where it should go | 18:21 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: I think that is a discussion for the glance api team to handle. The description isn't worded well | 18:22 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: fair enough | 18:22 |
| vishy | the formalized-message-structures is something that everyone wants but no one wants to do... | 18:22 |
| bcwaldon | ok, moving on | 18:22 |
| bcwaldon | whoop | 18:22 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: Yeah...I'm all for it, but I don't want to do it | 18:23 |
| bcwaldon | does it belong on this team | 18:23 |
| bcwaldon | I think its something our apis depend on, but we can't define them in the context of this team | 18:23 |
| bcwaldon | ok...moving on? | 18:24 |
| bcwaldon | #Topic OpenStack Compute API Versioning | 18:24 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Compute API Versioning" | 18:24 | |
| bcwaldon | dun dun dun | 18:24 |
| jorgew | :-) | 18:25 |
| bcwaldon | So as many of you may know, there was a (yet to be resolved) discussion on the mailing list on what the best method of versioning is for *all* openstack apis | 18:25 |
| bcwaldon | i wanted to look at it from a different perspective and ask what makes the most sense for nova | 18:25 |
| bcwaldon | I do want to say that I understand that the api spec and implementation develop independently, but Nova absolutely gets to help define what that spec is | 18:26 |
| bcwaldon | Personally, I want to continue down a the path we have already established with the v1.1 API and expose the version in the URI. I would like to suggest we only expose the major version (so v1 instead of v1.1). | 18:26 |
| bcwaldon | I would also like to enforce that we make NO backwards-compatibile changes within a major version of our API. Incompatibile changes need to be carefully planned and introduced in a later major version. | 18:26 |
| bcwaldon | We can cut minor versions of each major version (for now just v1) at each OpenStack Release. For example, Essex will be our v1.2 release. I'm not saying that whatever is in Nova at that point becomes v1.2, I'm suggesting that we aim to develop the spec and release it in conjunction with Nova at that time. | 18:26 |
| jorgew | +1 on only exposing major version of the API in the URI | 18:27 |
| bcwaldon | typo -- NO backwards-incompatabile | 18:27 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: excellent! | 18:27 |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 18:27 | |
| jorgew | +1 on no backward incompatible changes on major versions | 18:27 |
| vishy | the preference from me for essex is that we a) don't have any backwards incompatible changes b) provide users an easier way to use some of the important features that we currently have | 18:27 |
| DuncanT | Isn't only exposing the major version, starting at 1, a confusing change? | 18:28 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: absolutely, I think that fits in exactly with what I proposed | 18:28 |
| bcwaldon | DuncanT: can you explain how that might be confusing? | 18:28 |
| jorgew | I don't like the idea of minor version at all, though I think they add a lot of complexity | 18:28 |
| DuncanT | I can see a url called 1.1 now, so a url called 1 isn't higher to my sense of logic. I'm fine with only exposing the major from now on, but can we hop straight to 2? | 18:29 |
| jorgew | vishy: Extensions provide a way to expose the features now, without any change in the version of the API. Plus the new feature is detectable | 18:29 |
| bcwaldon | DuncanT: yes, we will absolutely have to handle that situation | 18:29 |
| bcwaldon | DuncanT: but moving forward (i.e. v2) we won't have to | 18:29 |
| jorgew | DuncanT: Yea, we'll need to jump to 2 on the next major revisoin. I think of 1.1 as a major version release for now | 18:30 |
| bcwaldon | DuncanT: I'm not interested in jumping to 2 because that signifies too much change (that isn't going to happen) | 18:30 |
| jorgew | We should jump to 2, if in introduce an incompatible change | 18:30 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew, DuncanT: I'm proposing ignoring the 1.0/1.1 snafu and keeping v1 moving forward, that is until we feel a v2 is justified | 18:30 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: yes, but we don't have to introduce an incompatabile change | 18:30 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: and we should strive not to until we absolutely need to | 18:30 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: I think that will cause issures as Rackspace will continue to support 1.0 for some time to come | 18:31 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 18:31 | |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: can you explain? | 18:31 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: do you forsee a way for us to not make an incompatible change | 18:31 |
| vishy | jorgew: 1.0 is gone already | 18:31 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: so for a while there will be 1.0 and 1.1 — not sure how long | 18:31 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: simply adding things will not be incompatabile | 18:31 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: that's all we're planning on for essex | 18:31 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: I understand how to do it, I was thinking more how we verify it | 18:32 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: once we want to make a change (like going all asynchronous and not touching the db) then we may need to go to v2 | 18:32 |
| jorgew | vishy: Yes, it's gone in nova, but Rackspace will probably run it from the legacy system | 18:32 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:32 | |
| vishy | that we haven't accidentally done it. | 18:32 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: tests | 18:32 |
| vishy | jorgew: I don't think that is much of a problem | 18:32 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: yeah, I'm with vishy here, can you elaborate? | 18:33 |
| vishy | they can still expose /v1.0/ if it matters or just stick it in /legacy | 18:33 |
| jorgew | vishy: Sure, I just don't want to add confusion between /v1.0/ and /v1/ | 18:33 |
| vishy | jorgew: are you proposing an alternatie solution? | 18:34 |
| jorgew | What's the big deal with the next revinsion being 2 anyway — it's just a number? | 18:34 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: I think we can help with that by providing a list of supported versions at the /v1/ resource | 18:34 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: should we start at v2? | 18:34 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: THat's what we do today. All, I'm saying is if the next revision is 2 then we have 0 problems | 18:35 |
| DuncanT | /v1/ being supported while /v1.1/ isn't is a definite source of confusion.... I think if we're not carrying on with /v1.1/ then we need to hop to /v2/ | 18:35 |
| jorgew | ..and things just seem cleaner | 18:35 |
| vishy | i mean if we are renaming v1.1 -> v1 we could just as easily go v1.1 -> v2 | 18:35 |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:35 | |
| vishy | we could still envforce backwards compatibility | 18:35 |
| vishy | until v3? | 18:35 |
| bcwaldon | so I'm personally not a fan of upping the major version because it is *just* a number, and in the future I won't be interested in going from v2 to v3 within the span of a single release | 18:36 |
| jorgew | vishy: I see what you're saying. I don't have a problem with that. | 18:36 |
| bcwaldon | in this case I'd be fine with jumping to v2 since we did shoot ourselves in the foot with v1.0/v1.1 | 18:36 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: I agree, I think it will be less confusing for users | 18:36 |
| vishy | we just have to make sure people know that this is just a renaming | 18:36 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: sure, I just don't like how similar v1.1 and v2.0 will be | 18:36 |
| vishy | so minor version == 2.0? | 18:37 |
| bcwaldon | yes | 18:37 |
| bcwaldon | exposing v2 in the url | 18:37 |
| bcwaldon | I still want minor versions, I just dont wnat them in the url | 18:37 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: I think we should strive to have few major realeses exactly for this purpose. I really don't think there's a big deal to have v1.0->v1.1->v2 | 18:37 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: like I said, I'm fine with this specific case | 18:37 |
| bcwaldon | to prevent confusion | 18:38 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: Okay same here then, the next revision of the api will be v2 then? | 18:38 |
| bcwaldon | it will be v2.0 with v2 exposed in the url, released with Essex | 18:38 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: do you buy that? | 18:39 |
| bcwaldon | westmaas: ? | 18:39 |
| jorgew | Shouldn't we get 1.1 out complete by Essex first? | 18:39 |
| westmaas | yep, I buy that | 18:39 |
| vishy | +1 | 18:39 |
| bcwaldon | 1.1 is already done | 18:39 |
| bcwaldon | it was released with diablo | 18:39 |
| DuncanT | +1 | 18:39 |
| bcwaldon | ok, sounds like we made a decision | 18:40 |
| vishy | #info essex api will be v2.0 | 18:40 |
| jorgew | Well, I agree that the next revision of the API should be v2. | 18:40 |
| jorgew | :-) | 18:40 |
| vishy | #info essex will expose the api at /v2 | 18:41 |
| jorgew | My question is what incompatible changes will we be exposing to justify the move to 2? | 18:41 |
| vishy | #info it will be backwards compatible with v1.1 because it is not a true major version | 18:41 |
| vishy | jorgew: it is a minor version change | 18:41 |
| bcwaldon | whoa | 18:42 |
| jorgew | Ugh | 18:42 |
| bcwaldon | ok guys | 18:42 |
| bcwaldon | v2.0 will be incompatibile | 18:42 |
| jorgew | Okay, how so? | 18:42 |
| bcwaldon | it is incompatabile because of the uri | 18:42 |
| jorgew | That doesn't make it incompatible | 18:42 |
| bcwaldon | v2.0 is BY DEFINITION a major version change | 18:42 |
| bcwaldon | well we wanted to change v1.1 to v1 | 18:43 |
| bcwaldon | that would be incompatibile | 18:43 |
| vishy | didn't we just discuss that it is v1, but that is confusing? so we are using v2 instead? | 18:43 |
| bcwaldon | we're giving ourselves permission to *make* incompatibile changes | 18:43 |
| jorgew | I'm sorry, I'm just not following you. The version ID is defined as a string, today in the contract so moving from 1.1 to 2 does't mean it's incompatible | 18:43 |
| bcwaldon | no, the current contract only has authority over the v1.1 api | 18:43 |
| bcwaldon | its not an *all versions* doc, its a *v1.1* doc | 18:44 |
| jorgew | I think we should strive to keep compatability and introduce incompatbile changes only when we really have to | 18:44 |
| bcwaldon | we're starting fresh with v2.0, the first change we are making is to change how we expose the version in the uri | 18:44 |
| bcwaldon | then we're back to calling it v1 and not starting v2 | 18:44 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: it does in that we defined the versioning scheme that it uses to treat version ids as strings not numbers | 18:44 |
| bcwaldon | and we'll just make our users deal with the uri versioning change | 18:44 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: I think that was a mistake | 18:45 |
| *** cdub has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:45 | |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: Actually the fact that we can change from v1.1 to v2 means that it wasn't so much of a mistake, we can introduce a version 2 when we are ready... | 18:45 |
| jorgew | but again I would strive to keep compatibility | 18:45 |
| vishy | there is no provision for minor versions in the current api | 18:46 |
| vishy | so we are trying to solve that | 18:46 |
| bcwaldon | So I'd like to go back and re-propose we simply expose the version as v1, and release the api as v1.2 at essex | 18:46 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: who cares if it is v1 or v2? | 18:46 |
| bcwaldon | v2 signifies backwards incompatibile changes | 18:46 |
| bcwaldon | there don't need to be incompatibile changes | 18:47 |
| *** novas0x2a|lapto1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:47 | |
| vishy | how about we promote v1.1 -> v2.0 | 18:47 |
| vishy | then release v2.1 at essex? | 18:47 |
| jorgew | vishy: I'm all for minor versions in software. I think that they introduce some complexities in interfaces like rest, especially when you support extensions | 18:47 |
| jorgew | vishy: I'm okay with promoting v1.1 to 2 | 18:47 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: that's not a bad idea, but we'll have to preserve the mapping of v1.1 -> v2 in the router | 18:48 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: I think everyone was fine with your idea, just that calling it v1 is confusing | 18:48 |
| vishy | because it looks older than v1.1 | 18:48 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: It's not a big deal to do that mapping | 18:48 |
| bcwaldon | it's not just want to get that out there | 18:48 |
| *** mdomsch has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:48 | |
| bcwaldon | Ok, I'd like to propose we go with vishy's idea | 18:49 |
| vishy | +1 from me :) | 18:49 |
| jorgew | ++ | 18:49 |
| bcwaldon | westmaas, DuncanT: thoughts? | 18:49 |
| DuncanT | Aye, +1 | 18:49 |
| *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC | 18:50 | |
| westmaas | +1 | 18:50 |
| bcwaldon | excellent | 18:50 |
| jorgew | So on the uri /v1.1/ === /2/ right? | 18:50 |
| bcwaldon | v2, yes | 18:50 |
| jorgew | right, yes. Cool | 18:50 |
| vishy | yay | 18:50 |
| bcwaldon | we'll deprecate that redirect once we're sure we don't need it | 18:50 |
| bcwaldon | thank you vishy :) | 18:50 |
| bcwaldon | info that, vishy | 18:51 |
| jorgew | Just leave the redirect there for ever :-) | 18:51 |
| vishy | FOR EVAR! | 18:51 |
| bcwaldon | until we don't support v2, yes | 18:51 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: did you want to discuss your tenant id/name thing? | 18:51 |
| jorgew | I'm all for supporting versions for a long time… forever if possible, but that's just me | 18:51 |
| bcwaldon | #action bcwaldon to design blueprints for the versioning changes | 18:52 |
| bcwaldon | #info rename v1.1 to v2.0 and release v2.1 with Essex | 18:53 |
| DuncanT | I suspect we (HP) will be supporting v2 for a long time... customers tend to hate it when their code stops working | 18:53 |
| bcwaldon | DuncanT: I'm sure we'll support it for a *long* time, but I can guarantee it will have to deprecate it at some point | 18:53 |
| jorgew | How about we just say that we'll be renaming v1.1 to v2. I'd like to have a longer discussion on minor version numbers | 18:54 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: v1.1 will give us our first v2 release | 18:54 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: I guess you still want to talk about how we release at Essex? | 18:54 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: Well not so much about what we relase but how we handle minor versions, if at all | 18:55 |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 18:55 | |
| bcwaldon | ok, how about we talk about that in another meeting, I know we don't have enough time left here :) | 18:55 |
| vishy | lets table that for now. I think we have a few more things to go through | 18:55 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: There are some subtleties there that I think we should consider | 18:55 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: absolutely | 18:55 |
| jorgew | Okay | 18:55 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: was there anything else you wanted to bring up | 18:56 |
| vishy | yeah | 18:56 |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 18:56 | |
| vishy | separate-volume-api blueprint | 18:56 |
| vishy | and key-value pairs vs params | 18:56 |
| jorgew | You mean as a seperate service rather than an extension to compute? | 18:56 |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: there's enough to make a new service for sure, but I think there will always need to be an extension in compute (at least until we roll it into core) | 18:57 |
| *** nati2_ has quit IRC | 18:57 | |
| bcwaldon | jorgew: now it's just deciding what belongs where | 18:57 |
| jorgew | bcwaldon: agreed. | 18:58 |
| bcwaldon | #info blueprint separate-volume-api | 18:58 |
| bcwaldon | I think we need to talk to the volumes team and figure out what they might need | 18:58 |
| bcwaldon | vishy: what did you want to bring to attention? | 18:59 |
| vishy | oh just hoping someone can do it | 18:59 |
| bcwaldon | oh, ha, okay | 18:59 |
| jorgew | I meant with Chuck a while back and I'm drafting an API based on that conversation. Should have that out there by the end of the day today. Tomorrow at the latest. | 18:59 |
| vishy | i don't think the volume team has the chops | 18:59 |
| jorgew | *met with Chuck | 18:59 |
| bcwaldon | ok, I think somebody will do it, just won't happen soon | 18:59 |
| vishy | jorgew: I'm not referring to the api spec, i'm referring to the code | 19:00 |
| jorgew | Ah gotcha | 19:00 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: I will do the metadata one | 19:00 |
| bcwaldon | great | 19:00 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: maybe that will inspire me to do the volume one too | 19:00 |
| bcwaldon | do 'em all why don't ya | 19:00 |
| bcwaldon | ok, I think we're probably done here | 19:01 |
| bcwaldon | we're over by a minute already | 19:01 |
| bcwaldon | anything else before I end this officially? | 19:01 |
| vishy | bcwaldon: I guess we can talk about the key-value stuff offline? | 19:01 |
| bcwaldon | yeah, you and I are the only two that need to be involved anyways | 19:01 |
| bcwaldon | #endmeeting | 19:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Openstack Meetings: http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/" | 19:01 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Fri Nov 4 19:01:54 2011 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:01 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-11-04-18.05.html | 19:01 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-11-04-18.05.txt | 19:01 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack-meeting/2011/openstack-meeting.2011-11-04-18.05.log.html | 19:01 |
| bcwaldon | thanks for being here, guys | 19:02 |
| bcwaldon | I'll send out a summary to the list | 19:02 |
| jorgew | good meeting dude | 19:02 |
| *** jorgew has left #openstack-meeting | 19:07 | |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| *** hggdh has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:12 | |
| *** mdomsch has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| *** renuka has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| *** jdg has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:35 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 19:37 | |
| *** hggdh has quit IRC | 19:43 | |
| *** jdg has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| *** jdg has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:45 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 19:51 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:51 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:54 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 19:54 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:55 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 19:55 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 19:59 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 19:59 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 19:59 | |
| *** cdub has quit IRC | 20:02 | |
| *** df1 has quit IRC | 20:03 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:03 | |
| *** df1 has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:04 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 20:14 | |
| *** dolphm_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:36 | |
| *** dolphm__ has joined #openstack-meeting | 20:38 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 20:39 | |
| *** dolphm_ has quit IRC | 20:40 | |
| *** jsavak has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** dolphm__ has quit IRC | 21:02 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:03 | |
| *** bcwaldon has left #openstack-meeting | 21:04 | |
| *** bcwaldon has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:32 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:38 | |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 21:40 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:40 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 21:42 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:46 | |
| *** xtoddx has left #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| *** xtoddx has joined #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| *** xtoddx has left #openstack-meeting | 21:47 | |
| *** mattray has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 22:12 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:13 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 22:13 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 22:17 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 22:18 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 22:18 | |
| *** dragondm has quit IRC | 22:20 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 22:36 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:38 | |
| *** blamar has quit IRC | 22:42 | |
| *** nati2_ has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| *** blamar has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:42 | |
| *** nati2 has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| *** nati2 has joined #openstack-meeting | 22:48 | |
| *** nati2_ has quit IRC | 22:50 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 22:57 | |
| *** rnirmal has quit IRC | 22:59 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:10 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 23:10 | |
| *** dolphm has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:11 | |
| *** vladimir3p has quit IRC | 23:12 | |
| *** dendro-afk is now known as dendrobates | 23:16 | |
| *** dolphm has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** danwent has joined #openstack-meeting | 23:33 | |
| *** danwent has quit IRC | 23:34 | |
| *** jdg has quit IRC | 23:39 | |
| *** dendrobates is now known as dendro-afk | 23:44 | |
| *** novas0x2a|lapto1 has quit IRC | 23:57 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!