Open Stack

Thank you for your emails Flavio and Mike. It's really good to get a
clarity out there.

Hence, yes, the intent of the DefCore meeting was to get more "clarity"
on the entire situation and making sure that the project proceeds with
compliant standards. However, meetings can be informal and if anyone
perceived anything differently, I would like to apologize from my end.
I'm happy to clarify more things. Please feel free to ping me, send me
email or ask for chat if you do think that's necessary.

One important thing that I wanted to clarify for Newton, our top
priorities are 1) working with the Nova team for adoption of the Glance
v2 API 2) moving ahead and fast on the import refactor work. All of
these are strongly tied together API hardening and ensuring we support
interoperability requirements.

Looking forward to move collaboration with the DefCore committee in the
future.

On 4/1/16 1:03 PM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote:
> Hi Flavio! Thank you for the clarification.
>
>     I do realize that I missed both meetings and that logs from one of
>     them are not
>
>     complete. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the intentions here.
>     I do think
>
>     engaiging with DefCore as early in the process as possible is good
>     but I'd also
>
>     like to clarify the intentions here before this escalates (again)
>     into more
>
>     confusion about what Glance's future looks like.
>
>
> I want to tell youthat the intention of the DefCore meeting was not to
> confuse more on the work, rather it was to get clarity on all the
> constraints that we are stuck with. Currently we intend to keep our
> focus on interoperability issues this cycle - API hardening being our
> first priority, along with early adoption from Murano and Community
> App Catalog.
>
> And also I want to assure the community that Glare is being developed
> consistent with the API WG principles and in such a way that it could
> be included in DefCore at the appropriate time.
>
> Best regards,
> Mikhail Fedosin
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com
> <mailto:flavio at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     Greetings,
>
>
>
>     I missed yday's Glance meeting but I went ahead and read the logs.
>     While I was
>
>     at it, I read a sentence from Erno (under the Glare updates topic)
>     that caught
>
>     my eye:
>
>
>
>             14:06:27 <jokke_> About that. I got couple of pings last
>     night asking wtf is
>
>             going on. Could we please stop selling Glare as
>     replacement for Glance at
>
>             least until we have a) stable API and b) some level of
>     track record/testing
>
>             that it actually is successfully working
>
>
>
>     I went ahead and looked for the defcore meeting logs[0] (btw,
>     seems like the bot
>
>     died during the meeting) to get a better understanding of what
>     Erno meant (I
>
>     assumed the pings he mentioned came from the meeting and then
>     confirmed it).
>
>
>
>     From the small piece of conversation I could read, and based on
>     the current
>
>     status of development, priorities and support, I noticed a few
>     "issues" that I
>
>     believe are worth raising:
>
>
>
>     1. Glare's API is under discussion and it's a complementary
>     service for Glance.
>
>     [1] 2. Glare should not be a required API for every cloud, whereas
>     Glance is and
>
>     it should be kept that way for now. 3. Glare is not a drop-in
>     replacement for
>
>     Glance and it'll need way more discussions before that can happen.
>
>
>
>     I do realize that I missed both meetings and that logs from one of
>     them are not
>
>     complete. I apologize if I've misinterpreted the intentions here.
>     I do think
>
>     engaiging with DefCore as early in the process as possible is good
>     but I'd also
>
>     like to clarify the intentions here before this escalates (again)
>     into more
>
>     confusion about what Glance's future looks like.
>
>
>
>     So, to summarize, I don't think Glare should be added in DefCore
>     in the near
>
>     future. The Glance team should focus on fixing the current
>     interoperability
>
>     issues before we'll be able to actually try to build on top of the
>     current API.
>
>
>
>     Hope the above makes sense,
>
>     Flavio
>
>
>
>     [0]
>     http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/defcore/2016/defcore.2016-03-30-16.00.log.txt
>
>     [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/283136
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     @flaper87
>
>     Flavio Percoco
>
>
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
>     Unsubscribe:
>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 

Thanks,
Nikhil