20:03:52 <markwash> #startmeeting glance
20:03:53 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Dec 12 20:03:52 2013 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is markwash. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:03:55 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
20:03:57 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
20:03:58 <markwash> hi glance folks
20:04:04 <nikhil__> o/
20:04:04 <arnaud> Hi markwash
20:04:10 <ameade> hola
20:04:15 <hemanth_> o/
20:04:21 <zhiyan> hi
20:04:26 <stanlagun> hi
20:04:35 <markwash> so folks I've been a bit absent this week, stuff at work and kitty health issues
20:04:39 <gokrokve> Hi
20:04:43 <ativelkov> hi
20:04:51 <markwash> so i really appreciate whoever added stuff to the agenda
20:05:12 <markwash> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
20:05:22 <markwash> looks like we have some new folks
20:05:32 <igormarnat> Hi guys! (looking around) is this a glance meeting?
20:05:39 <arnaud> yes this is
20:05:40 <markwash> I suspect that is because of the exciting ML threads about glance and scope expansion
20:05:45 * markwash looks for links
20:06:22 <markwash> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/021233.html
20:06:49 <markwash> I propose we start off with some discussion of this
20:06:57 <markwash> #topic glance and heatr
20:07:11 <markwash> for those that aren't familiar, i suggest that you review the email link I posted
20:07:29 <markwash> but the basic idea is to expand the idea of glance to store things like heat templates, IIUC
20:07:46 <rosmaita> i am not opposed to expanding what glance contains, subject to keeping its basic philosophy intact (eg., immutable objects)
20:08:14 <markwash> I guess there are some heatr folks here, care to intrroduce yourselves?
20:08:27 <ameade> i support a more general catalog service
20:08:31 <gokrokve> markwash: Hi, I am Georgy Okrokvertskhov form Mirantis
20:08:48 <gokrokve> We are not from Heater team at all :-)
20:08:49 <zhiyan> yes, it catalog-generalization to me
20:09:00 <zhiyan> hello gokrokve
20:09:01 <igormarnat> Hey guys, I'm Igor Marnat from Murano team (Mirantis)
20:09:17 <gokrokve> Hi zhiyan
20:09:20 <ativelkov> Hi, I am Alexander Tivelkov, Murano team
20:09:21 <markwash> oh I see
20:09:22 <stanlagun> I'm Stan Lagun - Murano & Mistral
20:09:31 <markwash> sorry, I was confused, Hi Murano folks
20:09:39 <nikhil__> hey folks
20:09:53 <markwash> so, can you bring us up to speed on how Murano might fit into this integration?
20:10:09 <ativelkov> Murano is not HeatR, but we are really interested in general-purpose metadata repository
20:10:41 <gokrokve> Murano needs catalog for the same purpose, to store different objects
20:10:43 <stanlagun> Murano is among those projects that have templates that can be stored in Glance
20:11:00 <gokrokve> not only templates but scripts, UI definitions and workflows
20:11:05 <ativelkov> We manipulate complex metadata packages, and we need to store them per-tenantly, index them, add tags, versions, authorships etc - in an immutable form, of course
20:11:31 <gokrokve> We have an implementation of such catalog\repository in Murano
20:11:49 <markwash> okay, there might be a little impedance mismatch but I think it doesn't sound like there would be any big problems
20:11:58 <gokrokve> But Heater revealed that other projects also need repository
20:12:16 <markwash> the one thing that's a little bit differnt in glance is that some of our metadata is mutable
20:12:22 <igormarnat> And let's not miss the fact that Solum would also benefit from having the general metadata repo
20:12:38 <markwash> and some of our metadata is semantically significant to Glance
20:12:44 <markwash> so, not true metadata really
20:12:55 <markwash> e.g. you can download images through glance
20:13:01 <stanlagun> and Mistral too
20:13:08 <markwash> and it will perform checksum verifications against the checksum attribute of the image
20:13:26 <zhiyan> markwash: i think what gokrokve thinking is saving those files as our image entry
20:13:26 <gokrokve> markwash: We need this too
20:13:45 <markwash> gokrokve: ah okay
20:13:57 <gokrokve> zhiyan: Kind of. At least in the first implementation.
20:14:00 <ativelkov> Glance user is not able to modify an Image without changing ints id, right?
20:14:22 <zhiyan> markwash: and also need a container... iirc, service metadata
20:14:33 <markwash> ativelkov: it cannot modify the image data, it can modify metadata
20:14:40 <markwash> *some metadata
20:14:49 <ativelkov> its perfectly fine for us
20:14:58 <ameade> markwash: i think if we want to pick this as a solid direction for glance it would make sense, we could start talking about a v3...of course there are more immediate needs we could jam into v2
20:15:01 <ativelkov> Like, add tags, change description etc - right?
20:15:10 <markwash> so what's our plan of attack? is there any sort of proposal already on the table?
20:15:13 <gokrokve> markwash: We want to start submit BPs for new features required for genereic catalog
20:15:16 <markwash> ativelkov: yeah stuff like that
20:15:17 <stanlagun> I believe what is missing is a reach queriable metadata for all glance object that would allow implementing of catalogization - arranging object into hierarchies, groups etc. based on different criterias
20:15:28 <gokrokve> markwash: We want to make sure that this is not a surprise for you :-)
20:15:42 <markwash> heh sensible
20:16:16 <markwash> ameade: you bring up a good point
20:16:26 <gokrokve> markwash: Do you see a possibility to start this work in Icehouse?
20:16:33 <markwash> would it make sense to do this stuff somewhat separtely as part of v2.x?
20:16:50 <markwash> and try to munge the traditional view of images and these other aspects together in a v3 after Icehouse?
20:17:16 <nikhil__> markwash: +1 on that
20:17:19 <ativelkov> this sounds reasonable
20:17:21 <gokrokve> markwash: We need this catalog to develop Murano, and Heat probably will be interested as well as they need this for HOT Software components
20:17:51 <nikhil__> I kinda understand the complexity of adding stuff in domain layer so would recommed post I
20:18:42 <markwash> gokrokve: okay cool. . so we shoudl jsut be on the lookout for some blueprints soon?
20:19:00 <iccha> the domain model should be a separate convo we should def discuss about :)
20:19:04 <markwash> gokrokve: to answer your question about Icehouse, its a bit scary but I think if we understand the bps well enough we might ahve some hopes
20:19:23 <ashwini> markwash: i kind of sense an agenda forming here for glance mini summit :)
20:19:26 <zhiyan> gokrokve: is there a clear api definition for the metadata repo now?
20:19:33 <stanlagun> Are HeatEr guys ok with this? So that there will not be 10 different private repository implementations by Icehouse release
20:19:39 <ativelkov> I'll have a wiki-page with overall description of what we propose at about tomorrow
20:19:45 <markwash> gokrokve: I think it may be possible to  consider some slightly drastic options to make sure we can make progress
20:19:47 <gokrokve> zhiyan: There is no final API defined yet.
20:19:59 <markwash> gokrokve: for example, we could start out in a separate project under the same Glance program
20:20:00 <ativelkov> Then we will make more detailed blueprints on a per-feature basis
20:20:34 <iccha> markwash: do u mean, /templates like /images?
20:20:52 <gokrokve> markwash: We can do this as a separate project. You are right. But are you ok to handle two projects.
20:21:00 <esheffield> I'm a bit concerned about adding specific code for the different objects that might be stored
20:21:08 <markwash> iccha: that's one option, but just now I was saying something more like github.com/openstack/glance-template-api.git
20:21:15 <nikhil__> markwash: iccha ameade also, more modular sqlaclchemy impl before adding this :)
20:21:15 <zhiyan> gokrokve: from you old wiki, i can see a very draft define for poc, so i think if there has a clear define, i think it will be good to see the different for common metadata entry and image
20:21:33 <esheffield> could we think along the lines of a general metadata service with specific schemas defining the object types
20:21:40 <markwash> gokrokve: handling two projects is a bit of a burden but it might still be an okay option
20:21:40 <iccha> i see nikhil__ 's concern about strengthing what we currently have
20:21:43 <gokrokve> zhiyan: Sure. We need Heater guys to contribute too.
20:21:52 <ameade> esheffield: that makes a lot of sense
20:22:28 <ameade> markwash: i'm not opposed to this evolving into maybe a glance replacement project either
20:22:29 <nikhil__> esheffield: ameade +1 with a the option of drawing the line of cutomizations upfront
20:22:30 <rosmaita> esheffield: +1
20:22:34 <iccha> +1
20:22:38 <markwash> ameade: +1
20:22:39 <gokrokve> markwash: Can we discuss a separate project in ML? We will need input from TC on that too.
20:22:52 <markwash> gokrokve: absolutely
20:22:54 <nikhil__> too much customization will slow this down
20:23:16 <markwash> gokrokve: I think we need a lot of clarity on the final api featureset though to talk about this intelligently
20:23:34 <markwash> gokrokve: right now I don't know anywhere near enough to know which option would be best
20:24:06 <gokrokve> markwash: Sure. I know that Randall is working on Heater BPs for Glance too. So we can sync up with him, to speed up the API discussion
20:24:14 <ameade> there is much discussion to be had, especially about specific use cases...i think additional meetings are in order...or during the glance meetup
20:24:30 <nikhil__> +1
20:24:44 <gokrokve> ameade: I would rather use separate meeting.
20:25:00 <nikhil__> was this just related to Murano or was there anything about Mistral too?
20:25:08 <markwash> ameade: +1 definitely need additional discussion. gokrokve not sure if any interested folks from your side could manage a physical meetup? or if we should just schedule some separate IRC time
20:25:08 <gokrokve> ameade: Otherwise we will consume whole glance meeting time.
20:25:40 <markwash> gokrokve: yeah I think we'll wind this topic down for today here in a moment, just want to figure out the major next steps
20:25:42 <gokrokve> Face 2 face will be very effective + some guys remote via hangout
20:25:55 <stanlagun> Mistral would also probably need some repository in the future. Nothing specific for now
20:26:09 <nikhil__> gotcha
20:26:10 <gokrokve> We did this in Solum and it was efficient.
20:26:16 <markwash> gokrokve: so there is a glance meetup in the works for late january near Washington DC. . not sure if that could possibly work?
20:26:30 <ameade> markwash, gokrokve: i'm definitely interested in staying heavily in the loop on this
20:26:43 <arnaud> same here
20:27:05 <gokrokve> markwash: Should work fine. We can have first meetings in IRC\ hangout and then f2f meeting for final decisions.
20:27:17 <markwash> ashwini: yeah we might want more than 2 days if this does become part of the summit
20:27:25 <markwash> gokrokve: okay, when should we meet again?
20:27:27 <markwash> on irc
20:28:32 <gokrokve> markwash: Lets meet on next week, say Tuesday
20:28:37 <ameade> +1
20:28:46 <arnaud> +1
20:28:57 <gokrokve> markwash: We will submit some BPs and create etherpads with drafts
20:28:59 <ashwini> markwash: yes we should have a more confirmed agenda for the mini summit to see how much time can be allocated to this discussion or we should consider 3 day options
20:29:13 <markwash> gokrokve: okay sounds good
20:29:13 <gokrokve> markwash: Also Heater team will have time to prepare
20:29:30 <markwash> gokrokve: so we should look for an invite on the openstack-dev ML?
20:29:47 <gokrokve> markwash: During next meeting we can also discuss how to do development \ separate project vs. branch
20:30:04 <gokrokve> markwash: Sure. I will organize that.
20:30:10 <markwash> great, thanks!
20:30:19 <markwash> any other quick thoughts from folks? or should we move on?
20:31:05 <gokrokve> Nothing from our side :-)
20:31:21 <markwash> thanks for showing up
20:31:23 <markwash> this is pretty exciting
20:31:35 <markwash> #topic common version-agnostic api in glanceclient
20:32:11 <esheffield> that was mine
20:32:22 <markwash> esheffield: go for it
20:32:32 <markwash> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-client-common-api
20:32:46 <esheffield> basically wanted to get some more discussion on the idea of something like the image service layer being added to glanceclient
20:33:07 <esheffield> recall that Ghe had a patch doing some initial work in that direction a while back
20:33:31 <markwash> is anybody against the idea, assuming we can work out the details of what the api should look liike?
20:33:37 <esheffield> this is all tied to supporting V2 in Nova as well, along with the requested api autodiscovery
20:34:30 <esheffield> I confess that *I'm* not 100% in support of it, but mostly because I was having trouble envisioning a good clean API
20:34:52 <markwash> yeah, its a little rough
20:34:56 <esheffield> and what would happen in the case of mismatches (e.g. trying to use tags but only having a V1 backend)
20:35:05 <markwash> at this point, it might just need to be "whatevers in both v1 and v2"
20:35:36 <markwash> so probably tags wouldn't be part of v0.0,
20:35:48 <markwash> image sharing would be really reduced or absent
20:36:23 <markwash> etc
20:36:26 <esheffield> I know when we talked about it before it was mentioned that multiple locations was going to be required in Nova soon
20:36:55 <esheffield> so while I was hopeing on this helping with Nova -> Glance V2, that would be a blocker to this approach right away I think
20:37:14 <markwash> esheffield: I think multiple locations might work
20:37:35 <esheffield> that would be great then
20:37:42 <markwash> we just have to treat v1 as having only 1
20:38:07 <markwash> there are some ways we can put in some info about whether or not adding locations is supported as well
20:38:10 <markwash> if that is necessary
20:38:45 <markwash> so I think what we need is someone who has time to commit to proposing an api
20:38:48 <arnaud> how big is the work on this?
20:39:50 * markwash is not sure
20:40:33 <iccha> and we would have to maintain it for every feature we add as well
20:40:40 <markwash> iccha: exactly
20:41:01 <esheffield> well, I did some work on the images layer in Nova which is kind of what this would be and refactoring that code into something similar to this took a couple of weeks
20:41:07 <markwash> I think if we do it well, it will reduce support, because we can direct people to a lib api that we actually designed with the intention of supporting cross-version
20:42:10 <arnaud> esheffield: ok
20:42:43 <ameade> we still have 2 other topics for this meeting btw :)
20:42:48 <markwash> esheffield: looking at your quesitons in the etherpad
20:43:08 <markwash> hmm, well let's try to respond in that etherpad to carry the discussion forward
20:43:08 <esheffield> I did reuse a lot of what was in Nova already, so it was a bit crufty - I'd want to take more time and do it cleanly with a well designed api this time so probably a bit more time
20:43:18 <markwash> perhaps we can get to the other topics still, that way
20:43:33 <esheffield> yes, please add thoughts and comments there!
20:43:51 <markwash> okay, anyone not ready to move on for now?
20:44:09 <markwash> #topic glance versioning consistency
20:44:16 <markwash> esheffield: is this also your topic?
20:44:29 <esheffield> heh, yes
20:45:14 <esheffield> we can probably hold off on the broader topic there for a bit, but in working on the bug linked there some concerns came up over the verionsing
20:45:20 <esheffield> and backward compatibility
20:45:47 <esheffield> the more immediate concern is if fixing that bug causes backward compat problems
20:45:58 <markwash> ah
20:46:04 <esheffield> flwang was concerned esp.
20:46:17 <markwash> well, we got out a little ahead of json patch
20:46:24 <rosmaita> in draft 4, "add" on an existing member is an error
20:46:32 <markwash> we were implementing support when it was still in draft form, not sure if that is the culprit here
20:46:37 <rosmaita> in current standard, it acts like a replace
20:47:03 <markwash> I think that sounds like it is not a problem for backwards compat
20:47:07 <esheffield> yes, when we went to api v2.2 we said we support draft 10, but in draft 10 (and current) it's as rosmaita says
20:47:13 <markwash> well, at first consideration
20:47:14 <esheffield> but we still raise an error
20:47:33 <rosmaita> we have already deprecated openstack-images-v2.0-json-patch
20:47:40 <rosmaita> (or at least i have in the API docs)
20:48:30 <markwash> it sounds like this is just a bugfix
20:48:40 <markwash> I don't think depending on that erroring out is a behavior the client relies upon
20:49:12 <rosmaita> flwang was worried about API users expecting that behavior, though
20:49:25 <esheffield> that was what I thought as well - if anything people would be having to work around it and worst case the workarounds wouldn't be needed now
20:50:09 <markwash> hmm, flwang is not here to defend himself
20:50:15 <markwash> so let's all attack!
20:50:16 <markwash> j/k
20:50:19 <arnaud> :)
20:50:24 <esheffield> the glanceclient is unaffected too - it always fetches the image and generates a proper 'replace' or 'add' as needed
20:50:57 <markwash> so, the only difference is that now if you use add and it already exists, you get an error?
20:51:07 <rosmaita> yep
20:51:20 <markwash> is there any chance we could implement so if you use the old content type it does the old behavior, and if you use the normal content type you get the bugfix?
20:51:25 <markwash> probably a bit hacky, but
20:52:21 <esheffield> that kind of circles back to the bigger topic of version concistency
20:52:30 <rosmaita> well, the code right now rewrites the 2.0 request to be like a 2.1 request
20:52:36 <esheffield> if you get a list of versions you get several, but they're all actually the same thing
20:52:51 <markwash> esheffield: yeah that always seemed a bit weird to me
20:53:12 <markwash> based on what we're doing, it would be easier to just say "we use semantic versioning" somewhere in the docs
20:54:07 * markwash is starting to worry about time for the next topic
20:54:20 <rosmaita> next topic does not need much time
20:54:29 <nikhil__> if there is a min time for open discussion I've a quick question
20:54:30 <esheffield> sorry, didn't mean to dominate things today! :-(
20:54:53 <esheffield> take this to the ML perhaps?
20:55:05 <markwash> esheffield: I  responded to the bug discussion
20:55:15 <markwash> esheffield: I think we need a concrete proposal for what changes we want
20:55:20 <markwash> not just "why is this weird" :-)
20:55:28 <markwash> "because OpenStack"
20:55:32 <iccha> lol
20:55:43 <esheffield> :-)
20:55:48 <ameade> gotta love the honesty
20:56:09 <markwash> there's probably lower, weirder fruit
20:56:11 <markwash> :-)
20:56:13 <markwash> okay
20:56:16 <rosmaita> i agree we need a definite proposal for what we want to do before going to the ML
20:56:22 <ameade> does it bother anyone else that OpenStack is camel case?
20:56:22 <markwash> #topic image sharing
20:56:27 <markwash> (sorry to steamroll)
20:56:43 <rosmaita> so i promised to put together something to get the discussion going
20:56:51 <markwash> looks like you got a #linkt here
20:56:53 <arnaud> ameade: +1 :)
20:56:54 <markwash> well
20:56:57 <markwash> s/linkt/link/
20:57:29 <rosmaita> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-image-sharing-discussion
20:57:54 <rosmaita> anyway, we can discuss at next meeting
20:58:13 <rosmaita> after everyone who's interested has looked over the etherpad
20:58:22 <markwash> #topic open discussion
20:58:43 <nikhil__> can I ask?
20:58:57 <ameade> It seems a number of people did indeed follow my email about abandoned patches
20:59:11 <ameade> i'm going to gather more stats on bugs and things that have been in progress for ages
20:59:32 <ameade> then send another reminder email and later I will laser triage patches and bugs that nobody updates
20:59:56 <markwash> nikhil__: did you have a note?
20:59:57 <nikhil__> currently tasks response is of the form {<task_attrs>} vs. openstack common usage {'task': <task_attrs>} ?
21:00:13 <markwash> let's be glance-consistent
21:00:20 <ameade> +1
21:00:29 <nikhil__> same as images then
21:00:35 <nikhil__> cool, thanks
21:00:41 <markwash> okay, thanks everybody!
21:00:45 <markwash> wish me luck
21:00:51 <markwash> (no reason)
21:00:52 <rosmaita> good luck
21:00:55 <iccha> good luck markwash ! (not sure for what though)
21:00:58 <markwash> #endmeeting