I disagree with the new dependency graph here, I don't think its reasonable continue to have the Ephemeral RBD patch behind both glance v2 support and image-multiple-location. Given the time that this has been in flight, we should not be holding up features that do exist for features that don't.
I think we should go back to the original work proposed by Josh in [1] and clean it up to be resubmitted once we re-open for Juno. If some re-factoring for RBD is needed when glance v2 or image-multiple-location does land, we would be happy to assist. [1] https://review.openstack.org/46879 Andrew Mirantis Ceph Community On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Josh Durgin <josh.dur...@inktank.com>wrote: > On 03/12/2014 04:54 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > >> >> >> On 3/12/2014 6:32 PM, Dan Smith wrote: >> >>> I'm confused as to why we arrived at the decision to revert the commits >>>> since Jay's patch was accepted. I'd like some details about this >>>> decision, and what new steps we need to take to get this back in for >>>> Juno. >>>> >>> >>> Jay's fix resolved the immediate problem that was reported by the user. >>> However, after realizing why the bug manifested itself and why it didn't >>> occur during our testing, all of the core members involved recommended a >>> revert as the least-risky course of action at this point. If it took >>> almost no time for that change to break a user that wasn't even using >>> the feature, we're fearful about what may crop up later. >>> >>> We talked with the patch author (zhiyan) in IRC for a while after making >>> the decision to revert about what the path forward for Juno is. The >>> tl;dr as I recall is: >>> >>> 1. Full Glance v2 API support merged >>> 2. Tests in tempest and nova that exercise Glance v2, and the new >>> feature >>> 3. Push the feature patches back in >>> >>> --Dan >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >> Those are essentially the steps as I remember them too. Sean changed >> the dependencies in the blueprints so the nova glance v2 blueprint is >> the root dependency, then multiple images and then the other download >> handler blueprints at the top. I haven't checked but the blueprints >> should be marked as not complete (not sure what that would be now) and >> marked for next, the v2 glance root blueprint should be marked as high >> priority too so we get the proper focus when Juno opens up. >> > > These reverts are still confusing me. The use of glance's v2 api > is very limited and easy to protect from errors. > > These patches use the v2 glance api for exactly one call - to get > image locations. This has been available and used by other > features in nova and cinder since 2012. > > Jay's patch fixed the one issue that was found, and added tests for > several other cases. No other calls to glance v2 are used. The method > Jay fixed is the only one that accesses the response from glanceclient. > Furthermore, it's trivial to guard against more incompatibilities and > fall back to downloading normally if any errors occur. This already > happens if glance does not expose image locations. > > Can we consider adding this safety valve and un-reverting these patches? > > Josh > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- If google has done it, Google did it right!
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
