Open Stack

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2016-08-04 19:20:43 +0000:
> I disagree. I see glare as a superset of the needs of the image api and one feature I need thats image related was specifically shot down as "the artefact api will solve that".
> 
> You have all the same needs to version/catalog/store images. They are not more special then a versioned/cataloged/stored heat templates, murano apps, tuskar workflows, etc. I've heard multiple times, members of the glance team saying  that once glare is fully mature, they could stub out the v1/v2 glance apis on top of glare. What is the benefit to splitting if the end goal is to recombine/make one project irrelevant?
> 
> This feels like to me, another case of an established, original tent project not wanting to deal with something that needs to be dealt with, and instead pushing it out to another project with the hope that it just goes away. With all the traction non original tent projects have gotten since the big tent was established, that might be an accurate conclusion, but really bad for users/operators of OpenStack. 
> 
> I really would like glance/glare to reconsider this stance. OpenStack continuously budding off projects is not a good pattern.
> 

So very this.

It's clear there's been a disconnect in expectations between the outside
and inside of development.

The hope from the outside was that we'd end up with a user friendly
frontend API to artifacts, that included more capability for cataloging
images.  It sounds like the two teams never actually shared that vision
and remained two teams, instead of combining into one under a shared
vision.

Thanks for all your hard work, Glance and Glare teams. I don't think
any of us can push a vision on you. But, as Kevin says above: consider
addressing the lack of vision and cooperation head on, rather than
turning your backs on each-other. The users will sing your praises if
you can get it done.