Re: [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Nikhil Komawar 
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  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  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

Re: [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Nikhil Komawar 
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  > 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  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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __
>

Re: [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Flavio Percoco 

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  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  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

Re: [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Flavio Percoco 

On 01/04/16 10:10 -0700, Christopher Aedo wrote:

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Flavio Percoco  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  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.



Thanks for clarifying and the logs! This is helpful!

Flavio


[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



--
@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

Re: [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Christopher Aedo 
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Flavio Percoco  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  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

Re: [openstack-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Mikhail Fedosin 
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.

Best regards,
Mikhail Fedosin

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Flavio Percoco  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  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
>
>
__
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-dev] [defcore][glance] Glare not defcore ready

2016-04-01 Thread Flavio Percoco 

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  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


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