I kinda agree with all 3 of you, possibly because there are Grey areas
on how best we can actually do this. We are talking about one cycle
ahead to the very least. While that is a great thing to do, I think we
should focus on making the current Artifacts implementation stable &
bring it to a state that it works great with the different data asset
requirements within OpenStack realm (to support the main motivation
behind this concept and Glance's mission statement).
Cheers
Nikhil
On 5/27/15 8:30 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 27 May 2015 00:58
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Glance] [all] Liberty summit: Updates in Glance
Jesse, you beat me on this one :)
On 26/05/15 13:54 -0400, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
Thank you Jesse for your valuable input (here and at the summit) as
well as intent to clarify the discussion.
Just trying to ensure people are aware about the EXPERIMENTAL nature of
the v3 API and reasons behind it. Please find my responses in-line.
However, I do want to ensure you all, that we will strive hard to move
away from the EXPERIMENTAL nature and go with a rock solid
implementation as and when interest grows in the code-base (that helps
stabilize it).
On 5/26/15 12:57 PM, Jesse Cook wrote:
On 5/22/15, 4:28 PM, "Nikhil Komawar" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi all,
tl;dr; Artifacts IS staying in Glance.
1. We had a nice discussion at the contributors' meet-up at the
Vancouver summit this morning. After weighing in many possibilities
and evolution of the Glance program, we have decided to go ahead
with the Artifacts implementation within Glance program under the
EXPERIMENTAL v3 API.
Want to clarify a bit here. My understanding is: s/Artifacts/v3 API/g. That
is to say, Artifacts is the technical implementation of the v3 API. This
also means the v3 API is an objects API vs just an images API.
Generic "data assets'" API would be a nice term along the lines of the
mission statement. Artifacts seemed fitting as that was the focus of
discussion at various sessions.
Regardless of how we call it, I do appreciate the clarity on the fact that
Artifacts - data assests - is just the technical implementation of what will be
Glance's API v3. It's an important distinction to avoid sending the wrong
message on what it's going to be done there.
We also had some hallway talk about putting the v1 and v2 APIs on top of
the v3 API. This forces faster adoption, verifies supportability via v1 and
v2 tests, increases supportability of v1 and v2 APIs, and pushes out the
need to kill v1 API.
Let's discuss more as time and development progresses on that
possibility. v3 API should stay EXPERIMENTAL for now as that would help
us understand use-cases across programs as it gets adopted by various
code-bases. Putting v1/v2 on top of v3 would be tricky for now as we
may have breaking changes with code being relatively-less stable due to
narrow review domain.
I actually think we'd benefit more from having V2 on top of V3 than not doing
it. I'd probably advocate to make this M material rather than L but I think it'd
be good.
We perhaps would, but that would realistically push v2 adoption across the
projects to somewhere around O release. Just looking how long it took the v2
code base to mature enough that we're seriously talking moving to use that in
production.
I think regardless of what we do, I'd like to kill v1 as it has a sharing model
that is not secure.
The above would postpone this one somewhere around Q-R (which is btw. not so
far from U anymore).
More I think about this the more convinced I am about focusing to the move to
v2 on our consumers, deprecating the v1 out and after that we can start talking
about moving v2 on top of the v3 codebase if possible, not other way around
hoping that it would speed up the v3 adoption.
- Erno
Flavio
1.
2. The effort would primarily be conducted as a sub-team-like
structure within the program and the co-coordinators and drivers of
the necessary Artifacts features would be given core-reviewer
status temporarily with an informal agreement to merge code that is
only related to Artifacts.
3. The entire Glance team would give reviews as time and priorities
permit. The approval (+A/+WorkFlow) of any code within the
program
would need to come from core-reviewers who are not temporarily
authorized. The list of such individuals and updated time-line
would be documented in phases during the course of Liberty cycle.
4. We will continue to evaluate & update the governance, maturity of
the code and future plans for the v1, v2 and v3 Glance APIs as time
progresses. However, for now we are aiming to integrate all of
Glance (specifically Images) as Artifacts in the v3 API.
As I understand it, that is to say that v3 requests in the first
“micro-version” that specify the object type as image would get a not
implemented or similar error. The next next “micro-version” would likely
contain the support for images along with possibly implementing the v1
and
v2 APIs on top of v3.
As we will have EXPERIMENTAL v3 API, we should try to avoid micro-
versions.
However, we should soon consider this as a possibility once things seem
to stabilize.
1.
Special thanks to Flavio for providing DefCore and TC perspective as
well as initializing this discussion. Also, thanks to Stuart McLaren
and Brian Rosmaita for giving us thoughtful veteran feedback. The
entire team did a great job at putting all their questions and concerns
amicably on the table and came to a good understanding of the plan
and
level of commitment.
All the best to the Project SearchLight team who have decided to start
ElasticSearch based development for search functionality in OpenStack
as a separate program and would be porting respective code out of
Glance. Glance team would help co-ordinate this porting effort in order
to avoid destabilizing Images and MetaDefs code-bases.
This also means we will re-evaluate some of the existing spec proposals
and most likely not ask people for radical changes in their approach.
This first phase of the Liberty cycle would focus on seeing the
Experimental Artifacts API through. We will also focus on stability
aspects of the Images (v1 & v2) related features. The second phase
priorities would be decided at the mid-cycle meet-up (details to come
out soon).
Feel free to ask me questions on IRC or via email.
Cheers,
Nikhil
__________________________________________________________
________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Cheers,
Nikhil
_________________________________________________________
______________
___ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
