Pierre Prinetti

I think I understand your point of view. You are perfectly right: other packages use the same `WaitFor` function and they have been since forever. Your addition looks consistent with...

>I'd rather move them to utils. Let's see what the other Gophercloud maintainers think. I don't think your function should go into `utils`: either we keep consistent and accept them...

Hi @cardoe ! Thank you for this contribution. I particularly appreciate the rationale behind it. I could give this PR a brief look and I think it would be a...

... you are showing me an entire new world to explore

hmm things get ugly pretty quickly with embedding. Gotta find a better way to combine those ```Go createOpts := dns.NetworkCreateOptsExt{ CreateOptsBuilder: mtu.CreateOptsExt{ CreateOptsBuilder: networks.CreateOpts{ AdminStateUp: resource.Spec.Resource.AdminStateUp, Name: resource.Spec.Resource.Name, Description: resource.Spec.Resource.Description,...

OK I'm left with these four: * provider:network_type * provider:physical_network * provider:segmentation_id * is_default The `provider` package exposes the provider fields under `segments`, but not at the network level AFAIK.

Interesting. Well, that leaves me with: ```Go type NetworkCreateOpts struct { AdminStateUp *bool Name string Description string Shared *bool TenantID string ProjectID string AvailabilityZoneHints []string MTU int DNSDomain string PortSecurityEnabled...

Incidentally, I wonder if there is any advantage whatsoever in keeping these fields away from the main `networks.CreateOpts` struct.

An aggressive use of `omitempty` (or custom marshaling) would probably allow users to use an hypothetical full object, while only filling in the fields their cloud supports. Or am I...

The comment to the function you are modifying specifically mentions that it's "for internal use only". However I realise that since it's exported, it's integral part of the API surface....