On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM, John Griffith <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting >> this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers >> specified as https://glanceserver:9292 >> >> In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova >> and is missing the ssl support additions. >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 >> >> My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in >> cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. >> Should it all go into oslo? >> >> Cheers, >> Sam >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > Hi Sam, > > Short answer is "yes". Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it > does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought > of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally > and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. > > You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova > (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications > to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. > > John > BTW, we can update to include the SSL changes your bug references right away. Long term, I'd like to go with the OSLO approach. John
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
