Excellent! Thank you, Christopher, for supplementing by sharing the logs and the perspective.
On 4/1/16 1:10 PM, Christopher Aedo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, 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. > I was just about to type a response to this but saw Mikhail already > responded. As he said the team was seeking guidance and wanted to be > sure they were proceeding in the right direction long term, not > pushing for an immediate inclusion. > > I've shared my logs from the meeting here[1] which are complete, so > you can see the conversation in it's entirety. > > [1]: http://paste.openstack.org/show/492753/ > > -Christopher > > >> 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 >> > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ 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