Open Stack

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 03:31:19PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/11/2014 3:11 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> >On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 14:18 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> >>
> >>On 3/10/2014 11:20 AM, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Sean Dague <sean at dague.net> wrote:
> >>>>On 03/07/2014 11:16 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >>>>>On 03/07/2014 04:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>>>>>On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 12:20:21AM -0800, Andrew Woodward wrote:
> >>>>>>>I'd Like to request A FFE for the remaining patches in the Ephemeral
> >>>>>>>RBD image support chain
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59148/
> >>>>>>>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59149/
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>are still open after their dependency
> >>>>>>>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/33409/ was merged.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>These should be low risk as:
> >>>>>>>1. We have been testing with this code in place.
> >>>>>>>2. It's nearly all contained within the RBD driver.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>This is needed as it implements an essential functionality that has
> >>>>>>>been missing in the RBD driver and this will become the second release
> >>>>>>>it's been attempted to be merged into.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Add me as a sponsor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>OK, great.  That's two.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>We have a hard deadline of Tuesday to get these FFEs merged (regardless
> >>>>>of gate status).
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>As alt release manager, FFE approved based on Russell's approval.
> >>>>
> >>>>The merge deadline for Tuesday is the release meeting, not end of day.
> >>>>If it's not merged by the release meeting, it's dead, no exceptions.
> >>>
> >>>Both commits were merged, thanks a lot to everyone who helped land
> >>>this in Icehouse! Especially to Russel and Sean for approving the FFE,
> >>>and to Daniel, Michael, and Vish for reviewing the patches!
> >>>
> >>
> >>There was a bug reported today [1] that looks like a regression in this
> >>new code, so we need people involved in this looking at it as soon as
> >>possible because we have a proposed revert in case we need to yank it
> >>out [2].
> >>
> >>[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1291014
> >>[2]
> >>https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/nova+branch:master+topic:bug/1291014,n,z
> >
> >Note that I have identified the source of the problem and am pushing a
> >patch shortly with unit tests.
> >
> 
> My concern is how much else where assumes nova is working with the
> glance v2 API because there was a nova blueprint [1] to make nova
> work with the glance V2 API but that never landed in Icehouse, so
> I'm worried about wack-a-mole type problems here, especially since
> there is no tempest coverage for testing multiple image location
> support via nova.
> 
> [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/use-glance-v2-api

Does anyone understand how we can have missed this glance API compat
problem in gate and/or day-to-day development. Presumably the people
developing this feature were using a standard devstack environment
and so would have been relying on whatever is currently committed
in tree, and so not impacted by whatever blueprint did not land.
So why would it have worked for them and passed gate tests but then
fail in this way due to glance API changes ?

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|