On 01/04/16 20:03 +0300, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
Hi Flavio! Thank you for the clarification.I do realize that I missed both meetings and that logs from one of them are not complete. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the intentions here. I do think engaiging with DefCore as early in the process as possible is good but I'd also like to clarify the intentions here before this escalates (again) into more confusion about what Glance's future looks like. I want to tell you that the intention of the DefCore meeting was not to confuse more on the work, rather it was to get clarity on all the constraints that we are stuck with. Currently we intend to keep our focus on interoperability issues this cycle - API hardening being our first priority, along with early adoption from Murano and Community App Catalog. And also I want to assure the community that Glare is being developed consistent with the API WG principles and in such a way that it could be included in DefCore at the appropriate time.
Awesome! I think reaching out to Defcore is the right thing to do. Glad that was the intention and that we're on the same page. Thanks for clarifying, Mike! Flavio
Best regards, Mikhail Fedosin On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: Greetings, I missed yday's Glance meeting but I went ahead and read the logs. While I was at it, I read a sentence from Erno (under the Glare updates topic) that caught my eye: 14:06:27 <jokke_> About that. I got couple of pings last night asking wtf is going on. Could we please stop selling Glare as replacement for Glance at least until we have a) stable API and b) some level of track record /testing that it actually is successfully working I went ahead and looked for the defcore meeting logs[0] (btw, seems like the bot died during the meeting) to get a better understanding of what Erno meant (I assumed the pings he mentioned came from the meeting and then confirmed it). From the small piece of conversation I could read, and based on the current status of development, priorities and support, I noticed a few "issues" that I believe are worth raising: 1. Glare's API is under discussion and it's a complementary service for Glance. [1] 2. Glare should not be a required API for every cloud, whereas Glance is and it should be kept that way for now. 3. Glare is not a drop-in replacement for Glance and it'll need way more discussions before that can happen. I do realize that I missed both meetings and that logs from one of them are not complete. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the intentions here. I do think engaiging with DefCore as early in the process as possible is good but I'd also like to clarify the intentions here before this escalates (again) into more confusion about what Glance's future looks like. So, to summarize, I don't think Glare should be added in DefCore in the near future. The Glance team should focus on fixing the current interoperability issues before we'll be able to actually try to build on top of the current API. Hope the above makes sense, Flavio [0] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/defcore/2016/ defcore.2016-03-30-16.00.log.txt [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/283136 -- @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
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
