Open Stack

On 08/04/2014 05:56 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/04/2014 10:29 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 08/04/2014 09:46 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2014 09:09 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
>>>>> Duncan Thomas
>>>>> On Aug 1, 2014 9:44 PM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup. Though I'd love for this code to live in olso, not glance...
>>>>>
>>>>> Why Oslo? There seems to be a general obsession with getting things
>>>>> into
>>>>> Oslo, but our (cinder team) general experiences with the end result
>>>>> have
>>>>> been highly variable, to the point where we've discussed just
>>>>> saying no
>>>>> to Oslo code since the pain is more than the gain. In this case, the
>>>>> glance team are the subject matter experts, the glance interfaces and
>>>>> internals are their core competency, I honestly can't see any value in
>>>>> putting the project anywhere other than glance
>>>>
>>>> 2 reasons.
>>>>
>>>> 1) This is code that will be utilized by >1 project, and is a
>>>> library, not a service endpoint. That seems to be right up the Oslo
>>>> alley.
>>>>
>>>> 2) The mission of the Glance program has changed to being an
>>>> application catalog service, not an image streaming service.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> -jay
>>>
>>> Oslo isn’t the only program that can produce reusable libraries,
>>> though. If the Glance team is going to manage this code anyway, it
>>> makes sense to leave it in the Glance program.
>>
>> Agreed. Honestly it's better to keep the review teams close to the
>> expertise for the function at hand.
>>
>> It needs to be ok that teams besides oslo create reusable components for
>> other parts of OpenStack. Oslo should be used for things where there
>> isn't a strong incumbent owner. I think we have a strong incumbent owner
>> here so living in Artifacts program makes sense to me.
> 
> Sure, fair points from all. If it can be imported/packaged without
> including all the legacy Glance code, then I'd be more behind keeping it
> in Glance...
> 

FWIW, it's already like that. I'm working on the Glance port now[0],
which passes locally but not in the gate due to glance.store not being
released yet.

[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/100636/

Cheers,
Flavio



-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco