That's good to know, but I'm still just the weensiest bit confused. The
code is unreachable and unusable -- which is a bit more forceful than just
redundant or deprecated. Can it be removed? Does Zhi Yan have plans to do
that? Is there anything I can do to help?

Thanks!

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 12/02/15 09:34 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I touched bases with Zhi Yan and my understanding is right. Since
> Juno, we switched to using a queue based on database instead of file
> and the file queue is considered redundant and on its way to be
> deprecated.
>
> I'll also reply on the review,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up,
> Flavio
>
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> @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