2010/11/23 Eric Day <email address hidden>:
> While I agree this may not be ideal, it does mean it breaks any APIs
> that expectt that fault name. I don't see any harm in just keeping it as
> is, and maybe in the next rev we can redo fault names if needed. The
> current OpenStack API implementation should keep it for backwards
> compatibility.
2010/11/23 Eric Day <email address hidden>:
> While I agree this may not be ideal, it does mean it breaks any APIs
> that expectt that fault name. I don't see any harm in just keeping it as
> is, and maybe in the next rev we can redo fault names if needed. The
> current OpenStack API implementation should keep it for backwards
> compatibility.
I just want to mention that I share this concern.
-- www.ubuntu. com/ www.openstack. org/
Soren Hansen
Ubuntu Developer http://
OpenStack Developer http://