Rochelle, thanks for replying. Glad to hear all the voices. Response inline.
On 4/1/16 3:24 PM, Rochelle Grober wrote: > Hi folks. > > I'm chiming in here from a systems engineering perspective. I recently > discovered that OpenStack-client is trying to build cross-project consistency > into its design. As such, it is opinionated, but this is good. The glance > team might consider also consulting the OSC team to ensure api structure > compatibility with the OpenStack client. > +1 on consulting the OSC. I think the initiative is trying to capture as much consistency across the OS ecosystem as feasible. So, definitely OSC is a good & thus important pointer. > Yeah, this is a lot to rollup, but the more consistency across projects, the > friendlier it is to deployers and users, so heading that way soonest, but > when/where it makes sense would be a *good thing*. > Makes sense on the applicability on the purist principles (in this case consistency approach to the design). I would to like to chat a bit more on the system engg. perspective as well. I think there's a bit more to the design that consistency but all the discussions will be quite subjective/abstract right now and inappropriate for the ML discussions (possible cause of another set of confusions). If possible, let's all gather at the summit. > --Rocky > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 10:38 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Cc: Mikhail Fedosin; [email protected]; Flavio Percoco > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not > defcore ready > > Thank you for your emails Flavio and Mike. It's really good to get a > clarity out there. > > Hence, yes, the intent of the DefCore meeting was to get more "clarity" > on the entire situation and making sure that the project proceeds with > compliant standards. However, meetings can be informal and if anyone > perceived anything differently, I would like to apologize from my end. > I'm happy to clarify more things. Please feel free to ping me, send me > email or ask for chat if you do think that's necessary. > > One important thing that I wanted to clarify for Newton, our top > priorities are 1) working with the Nova team for adoption of the Glance > v2 API 2) moving ahead and fast on the import refactor work. All of > these are strongly tied together API hardening and ensuring we support > interoperability requirements. > > Looking forward to move collaboration with the DefCore committee in the > future. > > On 4/1/16 1:03 PM, 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 youthat 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. >> >> Best regards, >> Mikhail Fedosin >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Flavio Percoco <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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: >> [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> <http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe> >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> > > > -- Thanks, Nikhil __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
