Open Stack

---- On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 03:57:52 -0600 Mark Goddard <mark at stackhpc.com> wrote ----
 > On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 at 01:16, Ghanshyam Mann <gmann at ghanshyammann.com> wrote:
 > >
 > > ---- On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 13:00:35 -0600 Tim Bell <tim.bell at cern.ch> wrote ----
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > On 3 Mar 2020, at 19:55, Tim Bell <tim.bell at cern.ch> wrote:
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > On 3 Mar 2020, at 19:20, Albert Braden <Albert.Braden at synopsys.com> wrote:
 > >  > Sean, thank you for clarifying that.
 > >  >
 > >  > Was my understanding that the community decided to focus on the unified client incorrect? Is the unified/individual client debate still a matter of controversy? Is it possible that the unified client will be deprecated in favor of individual clients after more discussion? I haven’t looked at any of the individual clients since 2018 (except for osc-placement which is kind of a special case), because I thought they were all going away and could be safely ignored until they did, and I haven’t included any information about the individual clients in the documentation that I write for our users, and if they ask I have been telling them to not use the individual clients. Do I need to start looking at individual clients again, and telling our users to use them in some cases?
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  > I remember a forum discussion where a community goal was proposed to focus on OSC rather than individual project CLIs (I think Matt and I were proposers).  There were concerns on the effort to do this and that it would potentially be multi-cycle.
 > >  > BTW, I found the etherpad from Berlin (https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/BER-t-series-goals) and the associated mailing list discussion at http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2018-September/135107.html
 > >
 > > Yeah, we are in process of selecting the Victoria cycle community-wide goal and this can be good candidate. I agree with the idea/requirement of a multi-cycle goal.
 > > Another option is to build a pop-up team for the Victoria cycle to start burning down the keys issues/work. For both ways (either goal or pop-up team), we need
 > > some set of people to drive it. If anyone would like to volunteer for this, we can start discussing the details.
 > >
 > > [1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/2020-February/012866.html
 > >
 > > -gmann
 > 
 > This seems like quite an important issue for OpenStack usability.
 > Clearly there are resourcing issues within the glance team (and
 > possibly also some personal preferences) that have prevented OSC
 > gaining feature parity with the glance client. Having all of the core
 > projects able to recommend using OSC seems to me like it should be
 > quite a high priority - more so than having support for every project
 > out there. Would cross-project goal effort be better spent swarming on
 > filling these gaps first? Do we have any mechanisms to help drive
 > that? I know we have the help most-wanted list.

That is a good idea to first target big projects. We can finish this for
nova, glance, cinder, keystone, glance, swift at first.  
Apart from Upstream Opportunity (help-most-wanted list) [2], one 
better way is pop-up team [1]. For that, we need a set of people from
these projects or any developer to start working.

Also, we can add this as the upstream opportunity for 2020 
and see if we get any help. 

[1] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/popup-teams.html
[2] https://governance.openstack.org/tc/reference/upstream-investment-opportunities/2020/index.html

-gmann

 > 
 > >
 > >  >
 > >  > My experience in discussion with the CERN user community and other OpenStack operators is that OSC is felt to be the right solution for the end user facing parts of the cloud (admin commands could be another discussion if necessary). Experienced admin operators can remember that glance looks after images and nova looks after instances. Our average user can get very confused, especially given that OSC supports additional options for authentication (such as Kerberos and Certificates along with clouds.yaml) so users need to re-authenticate with a different openrc to work on their project.
 > >  > While I understand there are limited resources all round, I would prefer that we focus on adding new project functions to OSC which will eventually lead to feature parity.
 > >  > Attracting ‘drive-by’ contributions from operations staff for OSC work (it's more likely to be achieved if it makes the operations work less e.g. save on special end user documentation by contributing code).  This is demonstrated from the CERN team contribution to the OSC  ‘coe' and ‘share' functionality along with lots of random OSC updates as listed hat https://www.stackalytics.com/?company=cern&metric=commits&module=python-openstackclient)
 > >  > BTW, I also would vote for =auto as the default.
 > >  > Tim
 > >  > We are on Rocky now but I expect that we will upgrade as necessary to stay on supported versions.
 > >  >
 > >  > From: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>
 > >  > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 9:50 AM
 > >  > To: openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org
 > >  > Subject: Re: OSC future (formerly [glance] Different checksum between CLI and curl)
 > >  >
 > >  > On 3/3/20 11:28 AM, Albert Braden wrote:
 > >  > Am I understanding correctly that the Openstack community decided to focus on the unified client, and to deprecate the individual clients, and that the Glance team did not agree with this decision, and that the Glance team is now having a pissing match with the rest of the community, and is unilaterally deciding to continue developing the Glance client and refusing to work on the unified client, or is something different going on? I would ask everyone involved to remember that we operators are down here, and the yellow rain falling on our heads does not smell very good.
 > >  > I definitely would not characterize it that way.
 > >  > With trying not to put too much personal bias into it, here's what I would say the situation is:
 > >  > - Some part of the community has said OSC should be the only CLI and that individual CLIs should go away
 > >  > - Glance is a very small team with very, very limited resources
 > >  > - The OSC team is a very small team with very, very limited resources
 > >  > - CLI capabilities need to be exposed for Glance changes and the easiest way to get them out for the is by updating the Glance CLI
 > >  > - No one from the OSC team has been able to proactively help to make sure these changes make it into the OSC client (see bullet 3)
 > >  > - There exists a sizable functionality gap between per-project CLIs and what OSC provides, and although a few people have done a lot of great work to close that gap, there is still a lot to be done and does not appear the gap will close at any point in the near future based on the current trends
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >  >
 > >
 > 
 >