<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.gmail-im
{mso-style-name:gmail-im;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Suggest we get User community involved. If a user have tools written to current client libraries it will be impacted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So getting their feedback on impact and, for sure, continues reminder that this is coming and when will be good.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></a></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Jay Bryant [mailto:jsbryant@electronicjungle.net]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 6, 2018 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Sean McGinnis <sean. mcginnis@gmx. com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [tc][all] Train Community Goals<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p><span style="color:#CE1126">[EXTERNAL EMAIL] <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">>> We talked about those things as separate phases. IIRC, the first phase</span></span><span style="color:#500050"><br>
<span class="gmail-im">>> was to include ensuring that python-openstackclient has full feature</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">>> coverage for non-admin operations for all microversions, using the</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">>> existing python-${service}client library or SDK as is appropriate. The</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">>> next phase was to ensure that the SDK has full feature coverage for all</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">>> microversions. After that point we could update OSC to use the SDK and</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">>> start deprecating the service-specific client libraries.</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">> </span><br>
<br>
</span>>That was my recollection as well.<span style="color:#500050"><br>
<br>
<span class="gmail-im">This was my understanding as well and I think the phased approach is important to take given that I don't know that we have as many people with SDK experience. At least that is the case in Cinder.</span><br>
<br>
</span><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#222222">> I do think there is still a lot of foundation work that needs to be done before</span></span><span style="color:#222222"><br>
<span class="gmail-im">> we can make it a cycle goal to move more completely to osc. Before we get</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">> there, I think we need to see more folks involved on the project to be ready</span><br>
<span class="gmail-im">> for the increased attention.</span><br>
<br>
<span class="gmail-im">> Right now, I would classify this goal as a "huge lift".</span></span><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050"> </span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">I think that moving to OSC and away from the other client interfaces is a good goal. It will make for a better user experience</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">and would hopefully help make documentation easier to understand.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">With that said, I know that there is a sizable gap between what OSC has for Cinder and what is available for</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">python-cinderclient. If we make this a goal we are doing to need good organization and documentation of those</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="gmail-im"><span style="color:#500050">gaps and volunteers to help make this change happen.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:21 AM Sean McGinnis <<a href="mailto:sean.mcginnis@gmx.com">sean.mcginnis@gmx.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">> ><br>
> > In other words, does #1 mean each python-clientlibrary's OSC plugin is<br>
> > ready to rock and roll, or we talking about everyone rewriting all client<br>
> > interactions in to openstacksdk, and porting existing OSC plugins use that<br>
> > different python sdk.<br>
> <br>
> We talked about those things as separate phases. IIRC, the first phase<br>
> was to include ensuring that python-openstackclient has full feature<br>
> coverage for non-admin operations for all microversions, using the<br>
> existing python-${service}client library or SDK as is appropriate. The<br>
> next phase was to ensure that the SDK has full feature coverage for all<br>
> microversions. After that point we could update OSC to use the SDK and<br>
> start deprecating the service-specific client libraries.<br>
> <br>
<br>
That was my recollection as well.<br>
<br>
> > In other words, some projects could find it very easy or that they are<br>
> > already done, where as others could find themselves with a huge lift that<br>
> > is also dependent upon review bandwidth that is outside of their control or<br>
> > influence which puts such a goal at risk if we try and push too hard.<br>
> ><br>
> > -Julia<br>
> ><br>
<br>
I do think there is still a lot of foundation work that needs to be done before<br>
we can make it a cycle goal to move more completely to osc. Before we get<br>
there, I think we need to see more folks involved on the project to be ready<br>
for the increased attention.<br>
<br>
Right now, I would classify this goal as a "huge lift".<br>
<br>
Sean<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:jsbryant@electronicjungle.net" target="_blank">jsbryant@electronicjungle.net</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>