Open Stack

On 07/10/2017 04:31 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 07/10/2017 01:21 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
>> On Jul 10, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Mikhail Fedosin <mfedosin at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:mfedosin at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Given all the advantages and features of Glare, I believe that it can 
>>> become the successful drop-in replacement.
>>
>> Can you clarify this? Let’s assume I have a decent-sized deployment 
>> running Glance. If I were to remove Glance and replace it with Glare, 
>> are you saying that nothing would break? Operators, users, scripts, 
>> SDKs, etc., would all work unchanged?
> 
> I also have this question. The glance API is one of the most fundamental 
> and basic APIs. You pretty much can't do anything useful on a cloud 
> without touching it.

Actually - as an easy first-step - set up a gate job with a devstack 
that has glare and no glance and run shade's functional tests against 
it. We're pretty darned lenient - if you can pass our functional tests 
then talking about stricter things like tempest is worthwhile. If you 
can't - hopefully there will be some clear areas to work on.

> That said - it's not like glare couldn't also do those things - but I'd 
> need to understand some real specifics about what a cloud switching from 
> glance to glare looks like to the end user.
> 
> Also, we have a new upload API designed for glance that took a LARGE 
> amount of wrangling to get consensus on. I'd also want to know what this 
> situation looks like in glare, if image upload in glare supports all of 
> the use-cases that we figured out image upload in glance needed to 
> support. AND - there are folks who want import-from which was removed 
> between glance v1 and v2. Does glare support something in this area?