OSC future (formerly [glance] Different checksum between CLI and curl)

Adam Harwell flux.adam at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 20:11:05 UTC 2020

Well, part of maintaining feature parity is that the features should be
added to the OSC by the project team at the time they're made -- you're
already doing the work to add them to your own client, so instead, do the
same amount of work but add them in OSC instead! It doesn't seem incredibly
onerous to me. If the OSC plugin for your project IS the official client,
then there's no duplication of effort. I think saying "someone else had
better implement our features in a timely fashion" is a bit irresponsible.
Though, this is coming from working on a project where we aren't used to
being included as a "core piece" and having any work done for us, ever...

Also, things are also definitely moving in a better direction now with the
probable addition of project team liasons as cores in SDK/OSC, which should
alleviate a lot of the issues around "response time" on reviews, when you
do put in the effort to add features yourself.


On Fri, Mar 6, 2020, 00:15 Erno Kuvaja <ekuvaja at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 1:19 AM 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
>> Yeah, lets propose this as community goal again as it worked so well last
> time. ಠ_ಠ
> I think your most help wanted list/pop-up team is much more realistic
> approach. Lets see if there is enough interest to actually make it happen.
> What comes to our previous experience with Glance and moving to endorse
> osc, I think I'm not alone stating that we can discuss this again after osc
> has kept feature parity (and I mean to current release, not feature parity
> 2 years ago kind of thing) and actively addressed raised issues at least
> for a couple of cycles. Obviously if you/your users wants to use it
> meanwhile, that your call. If we cannot get that level of commitment, how
> do we expect to support this long term?
> I'm not willing to put our users through that misery again as it happened
> last time as long as I'm core in this project.
> - jokke
>>  >
>>  > 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
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20200306/70ae4f98/attachment.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list