Open Stack

On 3/30/2016 2:42 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016, at 03:26 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>> During the Nova API meeting we had some conversations about priorities,
>> but this feels like the thing where a mailing list conversation is more
>> inclusive to get agreement on things. I think we need to remain focused
>> on what API related work will have the highest impact on our users.
>> (some brain storming was here -
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-nova-api-ideas). Here is a
>> completely straw man proposal on priorities for the Newton cycle.
>>
>> * Top Priority Items *
>>
>> 1. API Reference docs in RST which include microversions (drivers: me,
>> auggy, annegentle) -
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/api-ref-in-rst
>> 2. Discoverable Policy (drivers: laski, claudio) -

Selfishly I'd like Laski to be as focused on cells v2 as possible, but 
he does have a spec up related to this.

>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/289405/
>> 3. ?? (TBD)
>>
>> I think realistically 3 priority items is about what we can sustain, and
>> I'd like to keep it there. Item #3 has a couple of options.

Agree to keep the priority list as small as possible, because this is 
just a part of our overall backlog of priorities.

>>
>> * Lower Priority Background Work *
>>
>> - POC of Gabbi for additional API validation

I'm assuming cdent would be driving this, and he's also working on the 
resource providers stuff for the scheduler, but might be a decent side 
project for him to stay sane.

>> - Microversion Testing in Tempest (underway)

How much coverage do we have today? This could be like novaclient where 
people just start hacking on adding tests for each microversion 
(assuming gmann would be working on this).

>> - Some of the API WG recommendations
>>
>> * Things we shouldn't do this cycle *
>>
>> - Tasks API - not because it's not a good idea, but because I think
>> until we get ~ 3 core team members agreed that it's their number #1 item
>> for the cycle, it's just not going to get enough energy to go somewhere
>> useful. There are some other things on deck that we just need to clear
>> first.
>
> Agreed. I would love to drive this forward but there are just too many
> other areas to focus on right now.

+1

>
>
>> - API wg changes for error codes - we should fix that eventually, but
>> that should come as a single microversion to minimize churn. That's
>> coordination we don't really have the bandwidth for this cycle.

+1

>>
>> * Things we need to decide this cycle *
>>
>> - When are we deleting the legacy v2 code base in tree?

Do you have some high-level milestone thoughts here? I thought there was 
talk about not even thinking about this until Barcelona?

>>
>> * Final priority item *
>>
>> For the #3 priority item one of the things that came up today was the
>> structured errors spec by the API working group. That would be really
>> nice... but in some ways really does need the entire new API reference
>> docs in place. And maybe is better in O.
>>
>> One other issue that we've been blocking on for a while has been
>> Capabilities discovery. Some API proposed adds like live resize have
>> been conceptually blocked behind this one. Once upon a time there was a
>> theory that JSON Home was a thing, and would slice our bread and julien
>> our fries, and solve all this. But it's a big thing to get right, and
>> JSON Home has an unclear future. And, we could server our users pretty
>> well with a much simpler take on capabilities. For instance
>>
>>   GET /servers/{id}/capabilities
>>
>> {
>>      "capabilities" : {
>>          "resize": True,
>>          "live-resize": True,
>>          "live-migrate": False
>>          ...
>>       }
>> }
>>
>> Effectively an actions map for servers. Lots of details would have to be
>> sorted out on this one, clearly needs a spec, however I think that this
>> would help unstick some other things people would like in Nova, without
>> making our interop story terrible. This would need a driver for this
>> effort.
>
> I think this ties directly into the discoverable policy item above. I
> may be misunderstanding this proposal but I would expect that it has
> some link with what a user is allowed to do. Without some improvements
> to the policy handling within Nova this is not currently possible.

Agree with Laski here.

>
>
>>
>> Every thing here is up for discussion. This is a summary of some of what
>> was in the meeting, plus some of my own thoughts. Please chime in on any
>> of this. It would be good to be of general agreement pre summit, so we
>> could focus conversation there more on the hows for getting things done.

Thanks for writing this up. I'm trying to get all of the nova subteam 
meetings on my calendar, but this one is hard for me to to make on time 
given daycare duties each morning.

>>
>> 	-Sean
>>
>> --
>> Sean Dague
>> http://dague.net
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> Email had 1 attachment:
>> + signature.asc
>>    1k (application/pgp-signature)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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,

Matt Riedemann