<div dir="ltr">I disagree with the new dependency graph here, I don't think its reasonable continue to have the Ephemeral RBD patch behind both glance v2 support and image-multiple-location. Given the time that this has been in flight, we should not be holding up features that do exist for features that don't.<div>
<br><div>I think we should go back to the original work proposed by Josh in [1] and clean it up to be resubmitted once we re-open for Juno. If some re-factoring for RBD is needed when glance v2 or image-multiple-location does land, we would be happy to assist.</div>
</div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="https://review.openstack.org/46879" target="_blank">https://review.openstack.org/46879</a></div><div><br></div><div>Andrew</div><div>Mirantis</div><div>Ceph Community</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Josh Durgin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:josh.durgin@inktank.com" target="_blank">josh.durgin@inktank.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 03/12/2014 04:54 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
On 3/12/2014 6:32 PM, Dan Smith wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I'm confused as to why we arrived at the decision to revert the commits<br>
since Jay's patch was accepted. I'd like some details about this<br>
decision, and what new steps we need to take to get this back in for<br>
Juno.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Jay's fix resolved the immediate problem that was reported by the user.<br>
However, after realizing why the bug manifested itself and why it didn't<br>
occur during our testing, all of the core members involved recommended a<br>
revert as the least-risky course of action at this point. If it took<br>
almost no time for that change to break a user that wasn't even using<br>
the feature, we're fearful about what may crop up later.<br>
<br>
We talked with the patch author (zhiyan) in IRC for a while after making<br>
the decision to revert about what the path forward for Juno is. The<br>
tl;dr as I recall is:<br>
<br>
1. Full Glance v2 API support merged<br>
2. Tests in tempest and nova that exercise Glance v2, and the new<br>
feature<br>
3. Push the feature patches back in<br>
<br>
--Dan<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Those are essentially the steps as I remember them too. Sean changed<br>
the dependencies in the blueprints so the nova glance v2 blueprint is<br>
the root dependency, then multiple images and then the other download<br>
handler blueprints at the top. I haven't checked but the blueprints<br>
should be marked as not complete (not sure what that would be now) and<br>
marked for next, the v2 glance root blueprint should be marked as high<br>
priority too so we get the proper focus when Juno opens up.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
These reverts are still confusing me. The use of glance's v2 api<br>
is very limited and easy to protect from errors.<br>
<br>
These patches use the v2 glance api for exactly one call - to get<br>
image locations. This has been available and used by other<br>
features in nova and cinder since 2012.<br>
<br>
Jay's patch fixed the one issue that was found, and added tests for<br>
several other cases. No other calls to glance v2 are used. The method<br>
Jay fixed is the only one that accesses the response from glanceclient.<br>
Furthermore, it's trivial to guard against more incompatibilities and<br>
fall back to downloading normally if any errors occur. This already<br>
happens if glance does not expose image locations.<br>
<br>
Can we consider adding this safety valve and un-reverting these patches?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Josh</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.<u></u>org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/<u></u>cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/<u></u>openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>If google has done it, Google did it right!
</div>