Re: [Openstack-operators] need feedback about Glance image 'visibility' migration in Ocata

On 11/17/16, 7:09 PM, "Sam Morrison" > wrote: Hi Brian, I don't think the user can shoot themselves in the foot here. If they are adding a member to an image it is pretty clear it means they want to share it. Yes I can see the case when you want

Re: [Openstack-operators] need feedback about Glance image 'visibility' migration in Ocata

Hi Brian, I don't think the user can shoot themselves in the foot here. If they are adding a member to an image it is pretty clear it means they want to share it. Yes I can see the case when you want to disable sharing but I don't think the 'visibility' attribute is the way to do it. What if

Re: [Openstack-operators] need feedback about Glance image 'visibility' migration in Ocata

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 01:27:39PM +, Brian Rosmaita wrote: :On 11/17/16, 1:39 AM, "Sam Morrison" > wrote: : :On 17 Nov. 2016, at 3:49 pm, Brian Rosmaita > wrote: : :Ocata

Re: [Openstack-operators] need feedback about Glance image 'visibility' migration in Ocata

On 11/17/16, 1:39 AM, "Sam Morrison" > wrote: On 17 Nov. 2016, at 3:49 pm, Brian Rosmaita > wrote: Ocata workflow: (1) create an image with default visibility, (2) change its

Re: [Openstack-operators] need feedback about Glance image 'visibility' migration in Ocata

> On 17 Nov. 2016, at 3:49 pm, Brian Rosmaita > wrote: > > Ocata workflow: (1) create an image with default visibility, (2) change > its visibility to 'shared', (3) add image members Unsure why this can’t be done in 2 steps, when someone adds an image member to

[Openstack-operators] need feedback about Glance image 'visibility' migration in Ocata

Hello Operators, The long-awaited implementation of "community images" in Glance [0] is just around the corner, but before we can merge it, we need to make a decision about how the database migration of the image 'visibility' field will work. We could use your help. Here's what's at issue: Up