On 13/08/15 08:32 -0700, Mike Perez wrote:
On 14:48 Aug 13, Flavio Percoco wrote:This is one of the reasons why it was asked for this email to be sent rather than making decisions based on assumptions (you're free to read - or not - the meeting logs). Saying "Glance is just pissing off the community" helps spreading a rumor that has been floating around which causes more harm than good and I'm not willing to accept that. If people have problems with were Glance is headed then please, speak up. I've done that for Glance, Zaqar, Trove and several other projects. I expect the same courtesy from other folks in this community, especially folks in leadership positions.I got zero responses on the mailing list raising a problem with Glance v2 [1]. I got zero responses on cross project meeting raising a problem with Glance v2 [2]. I'm very happy with my choice of words, because I think this hand slap on Glance is the first time I got acknowledgement in my frustration with Glance.
This is the first time I hear about your frustration, TBH. But I'm happy you brought it up.
I should not have to attend a Glance meeting to get someone to fix Glance v2 integration issues in Cinder.
Fully agreed and I'd like to add that reaching out on the mailing list and in the cross-project meeting should be more than enough to get attention on cross-project issues. As a plus, popping up in the channel in case of neither of the above worked is also good. Like me, some folks could have missed the thread and find the time of the cross-project meeting very inconvenient.
Glance is trying to increase v2 integration with Nova besides show [3], but I would recommend Nova to not accept further v2 integration until Glance has figured out how to handle issues in projects that already have v2 integration. To start, Glance should assign a cross project liaison [4] to actually respond to integration issues in Cinder.
Fully agreed, again.
Having focuses on the following is not helping: * Artifacts (I honestly don't know what this is and failed to find an explanation that's *not* some API doc).
Here I disagree. As of now, artifacts is what, at least for me, keeps the hope that Glance will go back to be what it used to be. The difference is that artifacts will do the registry work in a more generic way, rather than focusing just on images. Some people might disagree with the above being necessary at all, I just see it as a way to clean up part of the mess you mentioned and as a way to cover other areas of interest for the community.
* Tagging * Role based properties [5] (who is asking for this, and why is Glance enforcing roles?)
Erm, no idea what these two are, really. I'd guess the later is a follow-up on the metadef work but I don't see why that's needed.
This is a mess, and complete lack of focus on being what Glance was once good at, a registry for images.
I wish I could tell you that you're wrong but I can't. You're very much right and I very much agree with you. I don't believe, however, that Glance should limit itself to being an image registry. There are other features around images that are of great use for OpenStack deployments. Image conversion, for instance. Cheers, Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpaC9Tqczv2r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
