On 4/6/16 2:43 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 4/6/2016 1:17 PM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/16 2:09 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-04-06 10:46:28 -0700:
Need a inline clarification.
On 4/6/16 10:58 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 4/6/16 2:09 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-04-06 10:46:28 -0700:
>> Need a inline clarification.
>>
>> On 4/6/16 10:58 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>> On 06/04/16 08:26 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 04/06/2016 04:13 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> +1
Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-04-06 10:46:28 -0700:
> Need a inline clarification.
>
> On 4/6/16 10:58 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> > On 06/04/16 08:26 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 04/06/2016 04:13 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> >>> +1 for deprecation and removal
> >>>
> >>> To
Need a inline clarification.
On 4/6/16 10:58 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 06/04/16 08:26 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 04/06/2016 04:13 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
>>> +1 for deprecation and removal
>>>
>>> To be honest, when I started with Nova during Kilo, I didn't get
>>> why we have those
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 05:07 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>
>> self.glance = glance_client.Client('2', endpoint, token=token)
>
>
> There are next to zero cases where the thing you want to do is talk to
> glance using a token and an
On 06/04/16 08:26 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 04/06/2016 04:13 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
+1 for deprecation and removal
To be honest, when I started with Nova during Kilo, I didn't get
why we have those passthrough APIs. They looked like convenience APIs.
A short history lesson, why they got
On 04/06/2016 04:13 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote:
> +1 for deprecation and removal
>
> To be honest, when I started with Nova during Kilo, I didn't get
> why we have those passthrough APIs. They looked like convenience APIs.
> A short history lesson, why they got introduced, would be cool. I only
>
List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][glance] Proposal to remove
`nova image-*` commands from novaclient
> As a recent newcomer to using our client libraries,
PM---As we
> discuss the glance v2 spec for nova, questions are coming up around
> what to do about the nova
>
> From: Matt Riedemann <mrie...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev@lists.
te: 2016/04/05 03:49 PM
Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][glance] Proposal to remove `nova
image-*` commands from novaclient
As we discuss the glance v2 spec for nova, questions are coming up
around what to do about the nova images API which is a proxy for glance v1.
I don't
On 04/05/2016 05:07 PM, Michael Still wrote:
As a recent newcomer to using our client libraries, my only real
objection to this plan is that our client libraries as a mess [1][2].
The interfaces we expect users to use are quite different for basic
things like initial auth between the various
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
> The goal is to centralize the server expertise and have that be combined
> with the folks who know how to better design a library for a good developer
> experience (kind of like with osc). That said, I think the SDK
Date: April 5, 2016 at 16:11:05
>
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][glance] Proposal to rem
penstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][glance] Proposal to remove `nova image-*`
commands from novaclient
> So like I said, I haven't looked at it at all because I am middle aged,
> stuck in my ways, hate freedom, and because I didn't think of it.
>
> Does it include a com
t;
> Date: April 5, 2016 at 16:11:05
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][glance] Proposal to remove `nova
> image-*` commands from novaclient
>
> > As a recen
t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][glance] Proposal to remove `nova image-*`
commands from novaclient
> As a recent newcomer to using our client libraries, my only real objection
> to this plan is that our client libraries as a mess [1][2]. The interfaces
As a recent newcomer to using our client libraries, my only real objection
to this plan is that our client libraries as a mess [1][2]. The interfaces
we expect users to use are quite different for basic things like initial
auth between the various clients, and by introducing another library we
On Apr 5, 2016 2:49 PM, "Matt Riedemann" wrote:
>
> As we discuss the glance v2 spec for nova, questions are coming up around
what to do about the nova images API which is a proxy for glance v1.
>
> I don't want to add glance v2 support to the nova API since that's
As we discuss the glance v2 spec for nova, questions are coming up
around what to do about the nova images API which is a proxy for glance v1.
I don't want to add glance v2 support to the nova API since that's just
more proxy gorp.
I don't think we can just make the nova images API fail if
19 matches
Mail list logo