[Openstack-operators] Adding v1 LIKE support to python-glanceclient releases 1.x.x

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Mon Sep 14 11:18:02 UTC 2015

On 09/09/15 21:46 -0400, Clayton O'Neill wrote:
>I'd be glad to see the backwards compatibility parts go in.  I got bitten by
>this earlier this week and ended up switching my scripts over to using the
>python-openstackclient library to work around it.

Hey Clayton,

Thanks for the feedback.

Could you be more precise on what incompatibility affected you?

The patch that Nikhil linked in his email brings in several
"compatibilities" with v1. I personally think they should be examined
1 by 1 rather than pulling them all in, hence my question.

Switching to python-openstack client must have required some effort
and I'm curious to know why you decided to do that rather than
adapting your scripts to use the v2 cli. Do you have Glance's v2

Ideally, I think we should just move to use openstackclient, really.
But glanceclient is what we have now and that's what the Glance team
has focused on the most lately so I'd appreaciate as much feedback as
possible from you and others.

Thanks for your time,

>On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM, Nikhil Komawar <nik.komawar at gmail.com> wrote:
>    Hi all,
>    We recently release python-glanceclient 1.0.0 and it has the default
>    shell version as v2. This may result into some scripts not detecting the
>    change by default and discomfort to an extent.
>    So, I am reaching out to this list with the hope of getting some
>    feedback on the requirements, pros and cons you all think exist for
>    adding some support for v1 like calls as hidden command to the default
>    python-glanceclient shell API that is v2 centric by default. This should
>    unbreak the scripts to an extent and give a warning to users to update
>    the scripts in a stipulated time period so that they use the v2 API.
>    Here's the proposed patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219802/ . We
>    are not yet sure if we need to get it merged by tomorrow so that it can
>    be in stable/liberty by the end of the week. There has been one request
>    to get those in and the feedback we received from the developer
>    community was neutral.
>    In order to form an opinion on what's best for our users, we need some
>    feedback on this topic. Please send us your thoughts as soon as possible
>    and we will try to accommodate the same if permissible within the
>    technical limitations:
>    1. Whether you would like these commands added as hidden commands so
>    that shell API works like before (to extent possible).
>    2. You would like to use v2 shell API of the client by default and don't
>    care about this commit.
>    3. You don't care about the change. Your scripts are awesome and can
>    adjust to the upgrade of the client easily.
>    4. Anything else.
>    --
>    Thanks,
>    Nikhil
>    _______________________________________________
>    OpenStack-operators mailing list
>    OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
>    http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

>OpenStack-operators mailing list
>OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org

Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20150914/8f6f8234/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list