Open Stack

Hi,

Flagged Nova and Cinder into this discussion as they were the first intended adopters iirc.

I don't have big religious view about this topic. I wasn't huge fan of the idea separating it in the first place and I'm not huge fan of keeping it separate either.

After couple of cycles we have so far witnessed only the downside of glance_store being on it's own. We break even our own gate with our own lib releases, we have one extra bug tracker to look after and even not huge but it just increases the load on the release and stable teams as well.

In my understanding the interest within Nova to consume glance_store directly has pretty much died off since we separated it, please do correct me if I'm wrong.
I haven't heard anyone expressing any interest to consume glance_store directly within Cinder either.
So far I have failed to see use-case for glance_store alone apart from Glance API Server and the original intended use-cases/consumers have either not expressed interest what so ever or directly expressed being not interested.

Do we have any reason what so ever keeping doing the extra work to keep these two components separate? I'm more than happy to do so or at least extend this discussion for a cycle if there is projects out there planning to utilize it. I don't want to be in middle of separating it again next cycle because someone wanted to consume and forked out the old tree because we decided to kill it but I'm not keen to take the overhead of it either without reason.

- Erno

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikhil Komawar [mailto:nik.komawar at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2015 6:21 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Glance] glance_store and glance
> 
> Hi,
> 
> During the mid-cycle we had another proposal that wanted to put back the
> glance_store library back into the Glance repo and not leave it is as a
> separate repo/project.
> 
> The questions outstanding are: what are the use cases that want it as a
> separate library?
> 
> The original use cases that supported a separate lib have not had much
> progress or adoption yet. There have been complaints about overhead of
> maintaining it as a separate lib and version tracking without much gain.
> The proposals for the re-factor of the library is also a worrysome topic in
> terms of the stability of the codebase.
> 
> The original use cases from my memory are:
> 1. Other projects consuming glance_store -- this has become less likely to be
> useful.
> 2. another upload path for users for the convenience of tasks -- not
> preferable as we don't want to expose this library to users.
> 3. ease of addition of newer drivers for the developers -- drivers are only
> being removed since.
> 4. cleaner api / more methods that support backend store capabilities - a
> separate library is not necessarily needed, smoother re-factor is possible
> within Glance codebase.
> 
> Also, the authN/Z complexities and ACL restrictions on the back-end stores
> can be potential security loopholes with the library and Glance evolution
> separately.
> 
> In order to move forward smoothly on this topic in Liberty, I hereby request
> input from all concerned developer parties. The decision to keep this as a
> separate library will remain in effect if we do not come to resolution within 2
> weeks from now. However, if there aren't any significant use cases we may
> consider a port back of the same.
> 
> Please find some corresponding discussion from the latest Glance weekly
> meeting:
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/glance/2015/glance.2015-08-06-
> 14.03.log.html#l-21
> 
> --
> 
> Thanks,
> Nikhil
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-
> request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev