Yeah, that commit definitely disables the file-backed queue -- it certainly
*looks* like we want to be rid of it, but all of the code is left in place
and even updated to support the new format. So my confusion remains.
Hopefully Zhi Yan can clarify.

Link added. Thanks.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 11/02/15 13:42 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote:
>
>> I recently proposed a change to glance to turn the file-backed scrubber
>> queue
>> files into JSON: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145223/
>>
>> As I looked into it more, though, it turns out that the file-backed queue
>> is no
>> longer usable; it was killed by the implementation of this
>> blueprint: https://
>> blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/image-location-status
>>
>> But what's not clear is if the implementation of that blueprint should
>> have
>> killed the file-backed scrubber queue, or if that was even intended. Two
>> things
>> contribute to the lack of clarity:
>>
>> 1. The file-backed scrubber code was left in, even though it is
>> unreachable.
>>
>> 2. The ordering of the commits is strange. Namely, commit 66d24bb
>> (https://
>> review.openstack.org/#/c/67115/) killed the file-backed queue, and then,
>> *after* that change, 70e0a24 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67122/)
>> updates
>> the queue file format. So it's not clear why the queue file format would
>> be
>> updated if it was intended that the file-backed queue was no longer
>> usable.
>>
>> Can someone clarify what was intended here? If killing the file-backed
>> scrubber
>> queue was deliberate, then let's finish the job and excise that code. If
>> not,
>> then let's make sure that code is reachable again, and I'll resurrect my
>> blueprint to make the queue files suck less.
>>
>> Either way I'm happy to make the changes, I'm just not sure what the goal
>> of
>> these changes was, and how to properly proceed.
>>
>> Thanks for any clarification anyone can offer.
>>
>
> I believe the commit you're looking for is this one:
> f338a5c870a36e493f8c818fa783942d1e0565a4
>
> There the scrubber queue was switched on purpose, which leads to the
> conclusion that we're moving away from it. I've not participated in
> discussions around the change related to the scrubber queue so I'll
> let Zhi Yan weight in here.
>
> Thanks for bringing this up,
> Flavio
>
> P.S: Would you mind putting a link to this discussion on the spec
> review?
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Chris St. Pierre
>>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:
>> unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> --
> @flaper87
> Flavio Percoco
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Chris St. Pierre
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to