API compatibility policy and practices between juju versions

[Tim Penhey]

On 20/11/13 15:10, Nate Finch wrote:
> That seems like the less useful direction for backwards compatibility. 
> There's very little barrier to upgrading the client, so maintaining
> backwards compatibility in the server for it seems like a waste.
> 
> But I may be missing something.

What I'm referring to is the api server, and the agents as clients, not
the command line.

Tim

> On Nov 19, 2013 8:43 PM, "Tim Penhey" <tim.penhey at canonical.com
> <mailto:tim.penhey at canonical.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 20/11/13 12:05, Curtis Hovey-Canonical wrote:
>     > I am not sure if I am leading a discussion or just stating that we
>     > have a problem that I don't believe can be ever solved.
>     >
>     > We abandoned the release of 1.16.4 because we found it was
>     > incompatible with 1.16.3
>     >     https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1252469
>     >     "API incompatability: ERROR no such request "DestroyMachines"
>     on Client"
>     >
>     > I now believe this bug is in the same class of problem:
>     >     https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1250154
>     >     "ERROR no such request "EnvironmentGet" on Client"
> 
>     It was my understanding that the api server needs to be at least as
>     advanced as any client.
> 
>     This means that a 1.18 server should be able to support a 1.16.x client.
> 
>     However we don't support 1.18 clients on a 1.16.x server.
> 
>     Does this change your thinking?
> 
>     Tim
> 
>     --
>     Juju-dev mailing list
>     Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com>
>     Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>     https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>