On 4/16/16 1:33 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 15/04/16 11:42 -0400, Nikhil Komawar wrote: >> comment inline >> >> On 4/15/16 11:08 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >>> On 04/15/2016 10:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>>> On 04/01/2016 06:45 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >>>>> #2 - move discover major version back to glanceclient - >>>>> https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/3cdaa30566c17a2add5d9163a0693c97dc1d065b/nova/image/glance.py#L108 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand why this was ever in nova. This really should be >>>>> >>>>> glanceclient.discover... something. It uses internal methods from >>>>> glanceclient and internal structures of the content returned. >>>>> >>>>> Catching, if desired, should also be on the glanceclient side. >>>>> glanceclient.reset_version() could exist to clear any caching. >>>> This is exactly what I said in the original review in Mitaka :( >>>> >>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/222150/ >>>> >>>> Note that on PS10 I wrote: >>>> >>>> This code belongs in glanceclient, not Nova, IMHO... >>>> >>>> Line 169: Most of the above code should actually be in the >>>> python-glanceclient package, not here. The Nova code should be able to >>>> call glanceclient with a URI and get the latest supported Glance API >>>> version. >>>> >>>> and then later I said: >>>> >>>> To be a little clearer... the Nova code should be able to do something >>>> like this: >>>> >>>> glance_uris = CONF.glance_api_servers >>>> glance_uri_version_map = {glance_uri: >>>> glanceclient.get_latest_version(uri) >>>> for uri in glance_uris} >>>> >>>> So... pretty much in line with what you say above. >>>> >>>> Flavio then responded to me: >>>> >>>> "While I agree with you, I believe we should let this in "for now" >>>> whilst it's added to glanceclient. One of the things that blocked the >>>> previous work during the Kilo cycle were things being added to >>>> glanceclient and the fact that they weren't available right away. >>>> >>>> Can we agree on removing this code as soon as there's a glanceclient >>>> release with it? Happy to have a bug filed against glanceclient. The >>>> glance team will take care of this." >>>> >>>> and I wrote: >>>> >>>> "OK, if you promise to remove some of this code when glanceclient gets >>>> this functionality, then I suppose I'm good with this going in Nova >>>> for >>>> now." >>>> >>>> So, there's your answer to "why this was ever in Nova". >>> My expectation is that the turn around time on something like this >>> would >>> have been weeks, not months. I feel like the delays getting things into >>> glanceclient makes me a pretty firm -2 on "let's just hack it into Nova >>> for now". Because for now seems to equal for ever. :( >> >> Sure, let's avoid more delay. >> >>> Honestly, staring at all this again this morning I think that version >>> discovery in Nova is probably just complexity we don't need. Especially >>> because it tends to lead to code that goes and leans on version >>> discovery at weird deep layers, and it turns out you are using v1 for a >>> piece of a flow and v2 for a different piece. >> >> I can figure out a way to get this done in glanceclient soon-ish. > > FWIW, We had figure out a way to do *ALL* this in glanceclient during > Mitaka but > then nova patches were blocked and the plans we had agreed on were > changed. > Therefore, The glance team decided to dedicate resources on other > priorities > that were actually going to make it. > > So, forgive me if I jump in with a defensive tone but I disagree with the > feeling this would've taken forever. The Glance team was already > acting towards > this but then *Nova* happened. >
Thanks for the clarification Flavio. I guess now we can move on with the alternate plan proposed and keep the momentum on deprecating Glance v1 intact. I'm hoping that the cross track (nova-glance) summit session (Thanks Matt!!!!) will help relieve from some of such issues and perspective gaps that different people have. >>> I've proposed new addendum to the spec to just make this a config, with >>> a flow of how we'd get rid of it - >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/306447/ >> >> Having said all of the above, I'm good with your proposal so as to keep >> the current traction on the work. (Guessing that was the reason to delay >> glanceclient work before) >> > > I'm happy to see this moving forward. TBH, anything that would let > glance (and > Nova) move on from Glance's v1 is fine. > > Flavio > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Thanks, Nikhil
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
