From f75a52f7b796f287439e5c6bdeb3cc0a7bb922f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Monty Taylor Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 08:54:22 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Reword the note following microversion headers I had to read the original note four times before it made sense to me. The problem, I think, was that it talked about 'old' and 'new' - but I don't have enough context to immediately remember which is old and which is new. Also, the new thing was first, and my brain wanted to make them be listed in the opposite order. It was also unclear to me for a bit which was the one I was supposed to use. Address those concerns by rewording the note to be clear that the first option is the desired one, and to refer to each of them as first and second rather than old and new. Change-Id: I1d51572eb57278e6b21224ca60516c528de42ee1 --- guidelines/headers.rst | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/guidelines/headers.rst b/guidelines/headers.rst index 27fe55e..84f2f0a 100644 --- a/guidelines/headers.rst +++ b/guidelines/headers.rst @@ -66,10 +66,11 @@ following two headers:: OpenStack-API-Version: compute 2.1 OpenStack-Nova-API-Version: 2.1 -.. note:: The second header is in the form of a microversion header - currently in use. It effectively demonstrates the problem. Also - note that whereas the older header uses a service name the newer - header uses the more correct service type. +.. note:: The first header is the recommended form. The second header + is in the form of a microversion header currently in use. It + effectively demonstrates the problem. Also note that whereas the + second header uses a service name, the first header uses the more + correct service type. At first glance these header name and value pairs convey the same information, with the second option being a bit easier to parse on