Open Stack

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:02 AM, 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.

I was just about to type a response to this but saw Mikhail already
responded.  As he said the team was seeking guidance and wanted to be
sure they were proceeding in the right direction long term, not
pushing for an immediate inclusion.

I've shared my logs from the meeting here[1] which are complete, so
you can see the conversation in it's entirety.

[1]: http://paste.openstack.org/show/492753/

-Christopher


> 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
>