Open Stack

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 you that 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> 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://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20160401/3d4504be/attachment.html>