[Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com wrote: I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Hi Sam, Short answer is yes. Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:36 PM, John Griffith john.griff...@solidfire.comwrote: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com wrote: I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Hi Sam, Short answer is yes. Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. John BTW, we can update to include the SSL changes your bug references right away. Long term, I'd like to go with the OSLO approach. John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
Related to this, how do we in the future stop such code-copying from happening in the first place? Is it just that there needs to be a place for this (oslo?) that can be updated more quickly, or something similar? I'm always sorta 'weirded out' when people say that they copied some code in the name of 'it was quicker' or we are just 'borrowing it'. From: John Griffith john.griff...@solidfire.commailto:john.griff...@solidfire.com Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:36 PM To: Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.commailto:sorri...@gmail.com Cc: OpenStack mailing list openstack@lists.launchpad.netmailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.commailto:sorri...@gmail.com wrote: I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.netmailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Hi Sam, Short answer is yes. Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Related to this, how do we in the future stop such code-copying from happening in the first place? Is it just that there needs to be a place for this (oslo?) that can be updated more quickly, or something similar? I'm always sorta 'weirded out' when people say that they copied some code in the name of 'it was quicker' or we are just 'borrowing it'. But you have to admit 'it is quicker'. My experience is getting common code into Oslo and then port to project usually take two times longer time to merge, in best case. From: John Griffith john.griff...@solidfire.com Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:36 PM To: Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com Cc: OpenStack mailing list openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com wrote: I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Hi Sam, Short answer is yes. Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Regards Huang Zhiteng ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
Isn't that a lets fix the slowness instead of continue bad behavior. Fix the root problem and don't bypass it in the first place? Then said root problem is solved for everyone and isn't pushed into the future (as is typically done). On 12/11/12 5:31 PM, Huang Zhiteng winsto...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Related to this, how do we in the future stop such code-copying from happening in the first place? Is it just that there needs to be a place for this (oslo?) that can be updated more quickly, or something similar? I'm always sorta 'weirded out' when people say that they copied some code in the name of 'it was quicker' or we are just 'borrowing it'. But you have to admit 'it is quicker'. My experience is getting common code into Oslo and then port to project usually take two times longer time to merge, in best case. From: John Griffith john.griff...@solidfire.com Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:36 PM To: Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com Cc: OpenStack mailing list openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com wrote: I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Hi Sam, Short answer is yes. Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Regards Huang Zhiteng ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Isn't that a lets fix the slowness instead of continue bad behavior. Fix the root problem and don't bypass it in the first place? Then said root problem is solved for everyone and isn't pushed into the future (as is typically done). I'm not saying copying is the right thing to do. I totally agree we should avoid doing this. Fixing the slowness is also important. Oslo core devs, please take a look at the review queue, I've patches there for you. :) -- Regards Huang Zhiteng ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.comwrote: Isn't that a lets fix the slowness instead of continue bad behavior. Fix the root problem and don't bypass it in the first place? Then said root problem is solved for everyone and isn't pushed into the future (as is typically done). On 12/11/12 5:31 PM, Huang Zhiteng winsto...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.com wrote: Related to this, how do we in the future stop such code-copying from happening in the first place? Is it just that there needs to be a place for this (oslo?) that can be updated more quickly, or something similar? I'm always sorta 'weirded out' when people say that they copied some code in the name of 'it was quicker' or we are just 'borrowing it'. But you have to admit 'it is quicker'. My experience is getting common code into Oslo and then port to project usually take two times longer time to merge, in best case. From: John Griffith john.griff...@solidfire.com Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:36 PM To: Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com Cc: OpenStack mailing list openstack@lists.launchpad.net Subject: Re: [Openstack] Duplication of code in nova and cinder On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Sam Morrison sorri...@gmail.com wrote: I attempted to create a volume from an image in cinder and was getting this strange error, turns out it was because I had my glance servers specified as https://glanceserver:9292 In cinder the version of images/glance.py is older than the one in nova and is missing the ssl support additions. https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1089147 My real question is why is there one version is nova and one version in cinder. I also think there is quite a bit more unnecessary duplication. Should it all go into oslo? Cheers, Sam ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp Hi Sam, Short answer is yes. Need to check scoping etc and make sure that it does in fact fit within the parameters of OSLO. It's something I thought of a couple weeks ago but to be honest it's been low on my list personally and nobody else that I know of has shown an interest in picking it up. You'll notice another image related item we're *borrowing* from Nova (cinder.image.image_utils). In both cases there are slight modifications to fit Cinder's use case that given a bit of work could easily be shared. John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Regards Huang Zhiteng The reality is that sometimes copying (or borrowing) code from another project is in fact that best way to go. Personally my opinion is that in some cases, if there's a module that's needed that exists in another OpenStack project but is not available in OSLO then by all means it should be used (as it has here). At the same time there are cases where a major component (for example the filter scheduler patch in Cinder) should be held up until the common code is in fact available in OSLO. There's also a third case where the patch should move forward as is, but a BP should be submitted against OSLO (IMO). With respect to how to address bad behavior, I think that's a bit strong of a term (especially since I'm guilty of copying/borrowing files from Nova). Keep in mind that Cinder started as a *copy* of Nova, and while it's growing and we're making adjustments and corrections as we go, the reality is there's going to be things like this that come up, especially for the first release cycle or two of Cinder. Thanks, John ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
