Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Just to follow up, there was a discussion at the TC meeting on this, and given how close we are to summit we're proposing we have a cross project session there about it - http://odsreg.openstack.org/cfp/details/27 We'll try to get that scheduled in a way that it will not conflict with operator

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Some of us are actively watching the thread / participating. I'll make sure it gets on the TC agenda in the near future. I think most of the recommendations are quite good, especially on the client support front for clients / tools within our community. On 09/30/2015 10:37 PM, Matt Fischer

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

This is now queued up for discussion this week - https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/TechnicalCommittee#Agenda On 10/01/2015 06:22 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > Some of us are actively watching the thread / participating. I'll make > sure it gets on the TC agenda in the near future. > > I think

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Sean, Thanks for bringing this topic to TC meeting. Regards, Ivan Kolodyazhny, Web Developer, http://blog.e0ne.info/, http://notacash.com/, http://kharkivpy.org.ua/ On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > This is now queued up for discussion this week - >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Sean, openstack client supports Cinder API v2 since Liberty. What it the right way ti fix grenade? Regards, Ivan Kolodyazhny, Web Developer On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/29/2015 01:32 PM, Mark Voelker wrote: > > > > Mark T. Voelker > > > > > > > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On 09/29/2015 01:32 PM, Mark Voelker wrote: > > Mark T. Voelker > > > >> On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer wrote: >> >> >> >> I agree with John Griffith. I don't have any empirical evidences to back >> my "feelings" on that one but it's true that we weren't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 08:10:43AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/30/2015 07:29 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: > > Sean, > > > > openstack client supports Cinder API v2 since Liberty. What it the right > > way ti fix grenade? > > Here's the thing. > > With this change: Rally doesn't work,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On 09/30/2015 07:29 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: > Sean, > > openstack client supports Cinder API v2 since Liberty. What it the right > way ti fix grenade? Here's the thing. With this change: Rally doesn't work, novaclient doesn't work, grenade doesn't work. Apparently nearly all the libraries

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Thanks for summarizing this Mark. What's the best way to get feedback about this to the TC? I'd love to see some of the items which I think are common sense for anyone who can't just blow away devstack and start over to get added for consideration. On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Mark Voelker

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

First of all, I would like to say thank you for the feedback! TBH, I did'n propose to remove API v1 at all in Mitaka. I was against to remove v1 API instead of disabling it. IMO, if we'll decide to leave it as is in Mitaka and disable in N release - nothing will change. Everybody will use v1

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: > First of all, I would like to say thank you for the feedback! > > TBH, I did'n propose to remove API v1 at all in Mitaka. I was against to > remove v1 API instead of disabling it. > ​Sorry Ivan, I did not mean to imply

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On 28/09, John Griffith wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Mark Voelker wrote: > > > FWIW, the most popular client libraries in the last user survey[1] other > > than OpenStack’s own clients were: libcloud (48 respondents), jClouds (36 > > respondents), Fog (34

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

I think disabling it by default in early M should help shake out any remaining issues - we can decide if we actually release that way later. I'm against actually removing the V1 code however On 29 Sep 2015 15:56, "Ivan Kolodyazhny" wrote: > First of all, I would like to say

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On 2015-09-28 11:43 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Mark Voelker > wrote: > > FWIW, the most popular client libraries in the last user survey[1] > other than OpenStack’s own clients were: libcloud (48

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

> > > > I agree with John Griffith. I don't have any empirical evidences to back > my "feelings" on that one but it's true that we weren't enable to enable > Cinder v2 until now. > > Which makes me wonder: When can we actually deprecate an API version? I > *feel* we are fast to jump on the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Mark T. Voelker > On Sep 29, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Matt Fischer wrote: > > > > I agree with John Griffith. I don't have any empirical evidences to back > my "feelings" on that one but it's true that we weren't enable to enable > Cinder v2 until now. > > Which makes me

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Mark Voelker wrote: > FWIW, the most popular client libraries in the last user survey[1] other > than OpenStack’s own clients were: libcloud (48 respondents), jClouds (36 > respondents), Fog (34 respondents), php-opencloud (21 respondents), >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Yes, people are probably still using it. Last time I tried to use V2 it didn't work because the clients were broken, and then it went back on the bottom of my to do list. Is this mess fixed? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/2015-February/006366.html On Mon, Sep 28, 2015

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

Yeah we’re still using v1 as the clients that are packaged with most distros don’t support v2 easily. Eg. with Ubuntu Trusty they have version 1.1.1, I just updated our “volume” endpoint to point to v2 (we have a volumev2 endpoint too) and the client breaks. $ cinder list ERROR: OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [cinder] [all] The future of Cinder API v1

FWIW, the most popular client libraries in the last user survey[1] other than OpenStack’s own clients were: libcloud (48 respondents), jClouds (36 respondents), Fog (34 respondents), php-opencloud (21 respondents), DeltaCloud (which has been retired by Apache and hasn’t seen a commit in two