Open Stack

Excellent!

Thank you, Christopher, for supplementing by sharing the logs and the
perspective.

On 4/1/16 1:10 PM, Christopher Aedo wrote:
> 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
>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>


-- 

Thanks,
Nikhil