Open Stack

>I got zero responses on the mailing list raising a problem with Glance v2 [1].
>
>I got zero responses on cross project meeting raising a problem with Glance v2
>[2].
>
>I'm very happy with my choice of words, because I think this hand slap on
>Glance is the first time I got acknowledgement in my frustration with Glance.
>
>I should not have to attend a Glance meeting to get someone to fix Glance v2
>integration issues in Cinder.
>
>Glance is trying to increase v2 integration with Nova besides show [3], but
>I would recommend Nova to not accept further v2 integration until Glance has
>figured out how to handle issues in projects that already have v2 integration.
>
>To start, Glance should assign a cross project liaison [4] to actually respond
>to integration issues in Cinder.
>
>Having focuses on the following is not helping:
>
>* Artifacts (I honestly don't know what this is and failed to find an
>  explanation that's *not* some API doc).

Hi Mike,

There has definitely been debate around artifacts, both within and outside
the project.  Rather than beating us up, I'm genuinely interested to
know if you have any words of advice on how we could have handled this
differently (to avoid 'pissing off the community').

The original patch to extend Glance's mission to include artifacts is here:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98002

The set of approvers show that this was an OpenStack-wide effort rather
than a solo run by Glance.

At the summit in Vancouver we held a session to revisit this.  Around 40
people attended (including around 7 TC members) and debated artifacts
openly and with a constructive tone.

My memory is that opinions in the room were fairly equally split. One
TC member said it would be 'embarrasing' if OpenStack had two catalog
services. Another TC member adamently advocated that Glance should stick
to images.

We reached out to the community for feedback and acted as best we could
on the feedback we received.

It would have been ok (if unpopular) for us to have acted unilaterally.

How would Cinder have handled this type of situation? What could/should
we have done differently? What would you suggest we do now?

>* Tagging

If you mean 'metadefs' I'd tend to agree here. But, post the big tent
model, we have -- at least in one case -- kept focus by promoting proposed
non-core functionality to its own project:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188014

>* Role based properties [5] (who is asking for this, and why is Glance
>enforcing roles?)

Protected properties are typically used for licensing, so there is a real
business/legal use case here. The public clouds I know of use them. Is the
implementation stellar? Possibly not.

>
>This is a mess, and complete lack of focus on being what Glance was once good
>at, a registry for images.
>
>
>[1] - http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/070714.html
>[2] - http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/crossproject/2015/crossproject.2015-07-28-21.03.log.html#l-239
>[3] - https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/image/glance.py#L305
>[4] - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons#Inter-project_Liaisons
>[5] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/211201/1
>
>-- 
>Mike Perez