14:00:09 <flaper87> #startmeeting Glance
14:00:10 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Mar 10 14:00:09 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is flaper87. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:12 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:14 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'glance'
14:00:29 <jokke_> o/
14:00:29 <flaper87> #topic Agenda
14:00:32 <flaper87> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/glance-team-meeting-agenda
14:00:32 <bunting> o/
14:00:34 <mfedosin> o/
14:00:37 <abhishekk_> o/
14:00:37 <flaper87> so, who's around?
14:00:40 <flaper87> :D
14:00:44 <flaper87> YAY! People!
14:01:27 <flaper87> ok, I guess this is us
14:01:32 <tjcocozz> o/
14:01:33 <flaper87> #topic Updates Glare
14:01:37 <flaper87> mfedosin: ?
14:01:44 <rosmaita> o/
14:01:48 <dshakhray> o/
14:02:04 <mfedosin> hey
14:02:10 <kairat> o/
14:02:20 <mfedosin> so as you may know we started code developing
14:02:30 <mfedosin> there are two patches on review
14:02:41 <mfedosin> but they are a little bit outdated
14:02:59 <flaper87> Awesome! Great work
14:03:07 <mfedosin> I think today or tomorrow I'll upload Image artifact typy that will work with images
14:03:10 <flaper87> I'd encourage folks to first review the spec before reviewing the code
14:03:23 <mfedosin> and plan to have working service till next wednesday
14:03:24 <flaper87> It's fine to skip specs review until after RC1 is cut
14:03:36 <flaper87> ++
14:03:48 <mfedosin> also I made a presentation about glare yesterday
14:03:58 <flaper87> where? Mirantis?
14:04:00 <flaper87> Feedback?
14:04:05 <mfedosin> as a part of BugSmashingDay initiative
14:04:11 <mfedosin> no it was public
14:04:13 <flaper87> ah, I had no idea
14:04:14 <mfedosin> wait a sec
14:04:16 <flaper87> cool
14:04:48 <mfedosin> frankly speaking I was not prepared
14:04:57 <mfedosin> #link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8gjMgCQvbA
14:04:57 <flaper87> hehehe
14:05:09 <flaper87> ok, I'll watch it
14:05:13 <flaper87> anything else?
14:05:22 <mfedosin> one thing
14:05:42 <mfedosin> unfortunately Ina Vasilevskaya won't work on Glare
14:05:52 <mfedosin> Nova team took her :(
14:05:54 <flaper87> oh, what about Glance ;) ? :P
14:05:58 <flaper87> ah, crap
14:06:11 <mfedosin> yup :(
14:06:13 <flaper87> mfedosin: I've an idea! Ask her to help with the V1 -> V2 migration
14:06:16 <flaper87> hahahahaha
14:06:29 <mfedosin> flaper87: good idea btw
14:06:29 <flaper87> anyway, that's sad
14:06:33 * nikhil_k sneaks in
14:06:36 <flaper87> mfedosin: ;)
14:06:49 <mfedosin> that's all I had
14:06:51 <flaper87> ok, moving on
14:06:57 <flaper87> #topic Updates cross project
14:07:02 <flaper87> nikhil_k: floor is yours
14:07:08 <nikhil_k> hi hi
14:07:08 <flaper87> you got here just in time
14:07:23 <nikhil_k> :)
14:07:33 <nikhil_k> so, another small update on qutoas CP work
14:07:56 <nikhil_k> we've some more interesting questions on the
14:08:04 <nikhil_k> granularity of quotas
14:08:21 <nikhil_k> like that of
14:08:37 <nikhil_k> magnum
14:09:04 <flaper87> nikhil_k: could you link the x-prj spec here again?
14:09:15 <flaper87> or was that irc discussion?
14:09:16 <nikhil_k> the entire thing is not composed yet and I've not had my first round of caffeiin :P
14:09:20 <nikhil_k> oh sure
14:09:26 <flaper87> haha
14:09:48 <nikhil_k> yeah, I am typing something and deleting it
14:09:49 <flaper87> It'd be cool to integrate that to the specs review list when we'll start reviewing specs for newton
14:10:10 <nikhil_k> I read a comment from flaper87  you earlier in tehw week
14:10:30 <nikhil_k> do we need to work on more iterations of specs and deciding how to proceed on certain things?
14:11:01 <nikhil_k> besides, that the CP meeting was cancelled
14:11:12 <flaper87> mmh, not sure I follow that question :D
14:11:16 <nikhil_k> and I will be reaching out to folks for feedback on the policy spec
14:11:19 <flaper87> was it related to CP or glance?
14:11:23 <flaper87> nikhil_k: ++
14:11:46 <nikhil_k> flaper87: ah, I was just asking if we had decided on the spec for simple nested etc things on quotas?
14:12:03 <nikhil_k> or do we need more discussion on that
14:12:04 <nikhil_k> ?
14:12:26 <flaper87> ah, I don't think we have. I actually think it'd be better to have another discussion in a time where flwang can participate
14:12:53 <rosmaita> nikhil_k: how is the glance spec related to the x-proj quotas spec?
14:12:53 <nikhil_k> sounds good
14:12:54 <flaper87> So we can agree on which path we'll follow
14:13:04 <flaper87> ok, any other CP updates?
14:13:08 <nikhil_k> rosmaita: it's not yet entirely
14:13:23 <nikhil_k> #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-meeting-cp/%23openstack-meeting-cp.2016-03-07.log.html#t2016-03-07T21:13:31
14:13:30 <nikhil_k> that's quotas discussion this week
14:13:42 <nikhil_k> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/284454/
14:13:42 <flaper87> thanks
14:13:48 <nikhil_k> that's x-prj spec
14:13:49 <rosmaita> nikhil_k: i was asking because i was holding off on looking at hte glance spec, thinking it was superceded
14:14:07 <rosmaita> but is our strategy to still work on the glance spec in parallel?
14:14:20 <flaper87> rosmaita: I don't think we have a clear strategy there yet
14:14:23 <flaper87> :)
14:14:29 <rosmaita> ok, just wanted to make sure
14:14:44 <nikhil_k> rosmaita: flaper87 is right
14:14:54 <nikhil_k> I heard mixed things over here for what we need to do
14:14:57 <flaper87> There are 3 things: 2 glance specs and 1 coming up as CP effort. All this needs to align with the priorities for newton and the API changes that we've planned
14:15:08 <flaper87> so, it's still a bit blur for me
14:15:11 <flaper87> :D
14:15:23 <rosmaita> ok, looks like good topic for the summit
14:15:31 <nikhil_k> had a good convo with sean dague on this topic and he had a excellent suggestion that would mean glance spec is superseded by x-prj one
14:15:32 <flaper87> I'm honestly trying not to think much of it until RC1 is done
14:15:45 <nikhil_k> but only like oslo.db  -> glance.db
14:15:53 <nikhil_k> flaper87: ++
14:16:12 <flaper87> okido, anything else?
14:16:14 <nikhil_k> and  policy spec needing reviews is:
14:16:18 <nikhil_k> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/245629/
14:16:20 * nikhil_k done
14:16:32 <flaper87> nikhil_k: thanks for the updates!
14:16:37 <flaper87> #topic RC1 Focus
14:16:45 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/glance+branch:master+topic:glance-RC1
14:17:11 <flaper87> I've been changing topics on patches to make them show up in that search. Other folks have started doing the same too
14:17:18 <flaper87> The topic we're using is: glance-RC1
14:17:26 <flaper87> Note the focus is on *glance*
14:17:33 <flaper87> glanceclient and glance_store have been cut
14:17:47 <flaper87> That doesn't mean we can't have another minor release if there's something critical to fix
14:17:52 <flaper87> but it does mean the process is different
14:18:01 <flaper87> each of them have a stable/mitaka branch now
14:18:11 <flaper87> and we need to land patches in master and then backport them to mitaka
14:18:31 <flaper87> That basically means the Newton development for glanceclient and glance_store is officially opened
14:18:32 <jokke_> flaper87: there is glance_store change with glance-RC1 topic still ... does that mean that we need it and we need to backport it or was it left out intentionally?
14:18:40 <nikhil_k> haha, yeah I noticed that sabari tagged one for store so I did for client -- assuming that we will backport around RC1 time?
14:18:47 <flaper87> jokke_: that was just an honest mistake
14:18:57 <flaper87> I've reviewed it and backported it, I think
14:19:01 <flaper87> unless there's a new one
14:19:09 <flaper87> or unless I did that with a glanceclient one
14:19:11 <flaper87> hahaha
14:19:18 <nikhil_k> ^
14:19:20 <jokke_> Cinder store one from Tomoki
14:19:27 <jokke_> https://review.openstack.org/287006
14:19:30 <nikhil_k> there's new one,store by sabari and client by me
14:19:36 <flaper87> jokke_: ah yeah, so, no. I did review that but that should not be tagged as RC1
14:19:49 <jokke_> flaper87: thanks
14:20:18 <flaper87> So, TL;DR: If you're looking for things to review, use the link I pasted above. Look for things using the topic: glance-RC1
14:20:28 <flaper87> if you want to help collecting patches, then focus on *glance* patches only
14:20:40 <flaper87> RC1 is next week and we should be landing the last set of patches by Tuesday
14:20:47 <flaper87> questions?
14:21:16 <flaper87> good
14:21:20 <flaper87> #topic Remove run_tests.sh and tools
14:21:25 <flaper87> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088362.html
14:21:29 <flaper87> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/287779/
14:21:34 <flaper87> Can we remove that?
14:21:36 <flaper87> :P
14:21:38 <jokke_> more of a comment: Remember everyone that we can always backport to stable ands release the libs ... so even if there is something super important, lets focus glance deliverable RC1
14:21:49 <flaper87> jokke_: ++
14:22:05 <flaper87> I sent an email to the ML (ops and dev) asking for opinions and concerns
14:22:20 <flaper87> nikhil_k: raised some good questions and I reached out to some packagers on IRC
14:22:28 <flaper87> and no one is using those scripts
14:22:34 <flaper87> at least the people I talked to
14:22:34 <nikhil_k> flaper87: yeah, lets remove it. I think it will be like a bandaid being removed for some
14:22:42 <flaper87> The debian package uses testr directly
14:22:49 <nikhil_k> heh
14:22:49 <flaper87> coolio
14:23:01 <flaper87> I'll remove my -W and let people review it
14:23:06 <flaper87> unless someone screams now
14:23:08 <jokke_> flaper87: I'm pro of removing those (seems to be still broken, I tried run_tests just earlier this week) as long as you include the doc change in it as well you promised on the mailing list ;)
14:23:17 <nikhil_k> flaper87: but I'm interested in what you heard. may be after the mtg.
14:23:23 <nikhil_k> ?
14:23:34 <flaper87> nikhil_k: oh sure. I can share now
14:23:59 <nikhil_k> flaper87: pls do
14:24:00 <flaper87> Basically. Debian prefers using testr directly. Other packages have their own CI system and use tox with --sitepackages
14:24:19 <flaper87> I didn't hear anything from the OPs side and infra is not using it
14:24:41 <flaper87> That's all the feedback I got
14:24:44 * flaper87 thinks harder
14:24:56 <flaper87> The script was broken until a month ago, I think
14:25:09 <flaper87> or it's probably still broken, which is a good enough proof that no one is using it
14:25:15 <flaper87> or thye have their own hack
14:25:45 <flaper87> Does that help?
14:25:47 <flaper87> :D
14:25:51 <nikhil_k> ohk, thanks for that info. I think the folks who mentioned needing it either have taken a trip to mars
14:26:05 <nikhil_k> or are not in the openstack realm much these days!
14:26:16 <flaper87> nikhil_k: was that in previous cycles?
14:26:28 <flaper87> I mean, did they mention that on my email or was that on previous discussions ?
14:26:29 <nikhil_k> flaper87: yes
14:26:31 <flaper87> ah ok
14:26:34 <flaper87> got it
14:26:41 <flaper87> yeah, I can see how that script was useful in previous cycles
14:27:03 <nikhil_k> cool
14:27:07 <flaper87> but, seriously. Nowadays it's way easier to call python setup.py testr or simply use tox --sitepackages for system wide tests
14:27:19 <flaper87> ok, moving on unless there are other questions/comments
14:27:48 <flaper87> #topic Passing the Glance torch
14:27:52 <flaper87> #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-March/088811.html
14:28:01 <flaper87> more like a heads up, really
14:28:17 <flaper87> I hope some of you will run and I hope there will be an election and not a single candidate
14:28:36 <flaper87> It was a pleasure for me to be Glance's PTL and I hope to have done a good enough job
14:29:13 <flaper87> The reasons for me to not run again are half personal and half professional
14:29:25 <rosmaita> i personally am sorry to see you step down, but i hear you will continue working with glance (hopefully)?
14:29:27 <flaper87> I did consider running again back in December/January but things have changed
14:29:43 <flaper87> rosmaita: oh you ain't getting rid of me that easy
14:29:51 <rosmaita> :)
14:29:59 <jokke_> rosmaita: you're not the only one
14:30:25 <flaper87> Anyway, The reason I wanted to also bring this topic up during our meeting is because I'd like to encourage everyone to read that thread, especially folks planning to run
14:30:33 <flaper87> to run for the PTL role
14:30:36 <flaper87> not to run away
14:30:38 <flaper87> :P
14:30:50 <nikhil_k> I'm sorry to hear this and would love to hear more about stuff in Austin
14:31:06 <nikhil_k> what were the considerations and experiences
14:31:18 <flaper87> I put as many details as possible there and shared some ideas, thoughts, etc. I'm obviously available to support the upcoming PTL and help with anything possible
14:31:47 <flaper87> As someone said to me: I made it all a bit rosier than it was but I do think it that way
14:31:50 <flaper87> :P
14:31:58 <flaper87> nikhil_k: happy to :D
14:32:10 <flaper87> So, nominations are next week
14:32:13 <nikhil_k> rosier sounds fitting :D
14:32:30 <flaper87> I hope by now some of you know already whether you'll run or not
14:32:49 <flaper87> Please, if you'd feel like it, I'm interested in knowing and helping. Feel free to ping me offline
14:33:15 <flaper87> I do care a lot about Glance's roadmap and I'll make sure, even not being the PTL, that we don't go off track ;)
14:33:26 <flaper87> and by know, you all know I know how to be a PITA
14:33:28 <flaper87> :P
14:33:32 <flaper87> anyway, that's it
14:33:42 <flaper87> questions? comments?
14:33:51 <mclaren> just "thanks" dude
14:33:56 <mfedosin> just want to thank you for great job
14:34:12 <rosmaita> yes, this has been a productive cycle
14:34:27 * flaper87 bows and thanks folks for working together
14:34:38 <nikhil_k> yes, great job indeed
14:34:55 <flaper87> okido! Thanks everyone. Moving on
14:34:58 <flaper87> #topic Releases
14:35:00 <jokke_> flaper87: I'm not gonna thank you yet (the cycle is not over), good to hear that you will stick around at some level ;)
14:35:06 <flaper87> jokke_: I bet that's you
14:35:08 <flaper87> jokke_: ++
14:35:16 <jokke_> yeah, just quick heads up
14:35:46 <jokke_> so we have requested stable Libberty releases for the libs (about time for it)
14:35:52 <jokke_> lots of bug fixes
14:36:01 <jokke_> Stable Liberty glance_store 0.9.2 https://review.openstack.org/290524
14:36:10 <jokke_> Stable Liberty python-glanceclient 1.1.1 https://review.openstack.org/290774
14:36:36 <jokke_> hopefully get them tagged today, so please keep your eyes open
14:36:50 <flaper87> jokke_: thanks for handling the releases of these libraries once again!
14:37:07 <nikhil_k> jokke_: can we include the recent two changes? if they merge that is
14:37:10 <flaper87> Folks, keep an eye on the gate for breakage
14:37:19 <nikhil_k> or we can keep releasing in coming weeks?
14:37:24 <jokke_> and as flaper87 already mentioned, stable/mitaka branches were cut for libs out of glance_store 0.13.0 and client 2.0.0
14:37:33 <flaper87> nikhil_k: these are liberty releases
14:38:10 <nikhil_k> flaper87: yes, I am just curious if we were inclining towards fewer releases and once a month sort of deal?
14:38:17 <jokke_> so these will be last Liberty releases of Phase 1, criticals and security only for those please
14:38:35 <nikhil_k> ok, sg
14:39:09 <jokke_> lets try to keep mitaka releasing more often
14:39:14 <flaper87> jokke_: ++
14:39:30 <jokke_> now when I get my presense stabilized again
14:39:51 <flaper87> I think it'd be great if we could do a stable release per month or something like that. Also, we should include this info in the release schedule
14:39:59 <flaper87> so that folks know when we're planning to do stable releases
14:40:11 <jokke_> that's all from me. Lets get great RC1 out!
14:40:16 <flaper87> We can have "scheduled" releases and on-demand releases
14:40:23 <flaper87> anyway, just throwing it out there
14:40:26 <flaper87> we should discuss this later
14:40:32 <nikhil_k> yep
14:40:42 <flaper87> #topic Open Discussion
14:40:49 <flaper87> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/newton-glance-summit-planning
14:40:56 <flaper87> please, put summit topics in that etherpad
14:40:59 <jokke_> flaper87: time point releases are not per the current stable policy ... but lets be much more active
14:41:13 <flaper87> We'll start discussing some of those next week
14:41:22 <flaper87> jokke_: well, not globally. That doesn't mean we can;t do them
14:41:41 <flaper87> WE can schedule some and still call them "on-demand semver whatever"
14:41:43 <flaper87> :)
14:41:59 <flaper87> there was one more thing I wanted to say
14:42:01 <flaper87> and I forgot
14:42:02 <flaper87> hahahahah
14:42:07 <flaper87> it's all jokke_'s fault
14:42:12 <jokke_> flaper87: I think the reasoning behind not doing them was good enough, but we can take that discussion offline
14:42:24 <jokke_> flaper87: put it on my tap
14:42:47 <flaper87> Ah
14:42:48 <flaper87> I remember now
14:42:53 <flaper87> glance_store mitaka is broken
14:42:56 <flaper87> YAY!
14:42:58 <flaper87> so
14:43:00 <flaper87> not glance_store
14:43:02 <flaper87> the gate
14:43:04 <flaper87> A swiftclient release broke it
14:43:12 <flaper87> but tjcocozz is working on a fix
14:43:21 <flaper87> basically, I think just the test suite is broken
14:43:21 <jokke_> Aa it came from there
14:43:23 <flaper87> we'll see
14:43:27 <flaper87> jokke_: yeah
14:43:30 <flaper87> found it last night
14:43:35 <jokke_> good that you guys got it narrowed down that far
14:44:02 <flaper87> so, hopefully tjcocozz will have a fix for it soon. I'd love to see it fixed before the end of the week
14:44:08 <flaper87> the working week
14:44:12 <flaper87> :P
14:44:16 <flaper87> ok, tomorrow
14:44:18 <flaper87> there, I said it
14:44:24 <jokke_> no pressure, but yesterday, please
14:44:29 <flaper87> tjcocozz: ^
14:44:31 <flaper87> please
14:44:43 <flaper87> ok, that's it from me
14:44:48 <tjcocozz> flaper87, you are 100 correct and i am trying to fix it :)
14:44:54 <flaper87> anything else? Anyone?
14:44:56 <flaper87> tjcocozz: ++
14:45:11 <jokke_> tjcocozz: gr8 thanks!
14:45:16 <mclaren> Is there/should there be an image upload refactor proposal on the etherpad?
14:45:32 <nikhil_k> none yet
14:45:36 <rosmaita> mclaren: no, we hope to have it settled before the summit
14:45:39 <flaper87> mclaren: TBH, I'd prefer there not to be
14:45:43 <rosmaita> discussion on patches
14:45:48 <mclaren> ok
14:45:49 <flaper87> :)
14:45:56 <rosmaita> i am afriad of what might happen if we open it up again
14:46:07 <tjcocozz> flaper87, just need to get https://github.com/openstack/glance_store/blob/master/glance_store/tests/unit/test_swift_store.py#L144 to return a response instead of a string.
14:46:08 <flaper87> rosmaita: ++
14:46:26 <flaper87> tjcocozz: ++
14:46:34 <mfedosin> folks, I want to discuss tagging in v2
14:46:55 <mfedosin> as you may know we have special API for setting and removing tags
14:47:00 <jokke_> tjcocozz: feel free to ping me when you figure out and we'll get it reviewed asap
14:47:06 <mfedosin> controller, etc.
14:47:20 <tjcocozz> jokke_, definetly!
14:47:20 <rosmaita> mclaren: i am working on 2 patches at flaper87's request, (1) disadvantages of "accepted" proposal (to compare to your alternatives patch) and (2) proposal for schematizing the proposed image "message" field
14:47:44 <mfedosin> but also we are able to do it with json patch as regular update
14:47:54 <rosmaita> mclaren: hope to have those up "soon"
14:47:54 * flaper87 wonders if he should put those patches in his Santa letter for christmas
14:48:03 <jokke_> mfedosin: do you have good news or is that the next can of worms we open? :P
14:48:09 * flaper87 is obviously trolling rosmaita
14:48:11 <mfedosin> what do you thin about this inconsistency
14:48:12 <mfedosin> ?
14:48:31 <mclaren> rosmaita: ok
14:48:46 <rosmaita> flaper87: how about by St. Patrick's day?
14:48:55 <mfedosin> jokke_: just asking :) darja found this when she was working on transaction layer
14:49:27 <jokke_> mfedosin: ok, well I think based on current community preference we're stuck with both ways
14:49:28 <flaper87> mfedosin: thing is, changing any of it means changing the API, which likely means breaking the backwards compatibility
14:49:36 <flaper87> jokke_: out of my mind
14:49:39 <flaper87> rosmaita: I'll take that
14:49:54 <rosmaita> mfedosin: yes, we are stuck
14:50:02 <flaper87> so, unless we have good reasons to remove either of them, we're stuck with both
14:50:05 <jokke_> mfedosin: if there is (and I'm pretty sure that's the case) room for improvement in our documentation, happy to look into PS helping out
14:50:16 <flaper87> We can accidentally omit one of them in our docs, though
14:50:19 <flaper87> hahahahhaha
14:50:31 <flaper87> jokke_: again, out of my mind
14:50:51 <jokke_> flaper87: ^^ I was faster and surprisingly this time the more politically correct one :P
14:50:53 <nikhil_k> well
14:50:59 <mfedosin> supporting glance v2 api in glare will be tough
14:51:02 <nikhil_k> tags unlike member are a part of the image
14:51:02 <flaper87> jokke_: LOL
14:51:07 <nikhil_k> https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/api/v2/images.py#L906
14:51:23 <nikhil_k> since it's in the schema of the image, I think we need the PATCH call for sure
14:51:30 <jokke_> mfedosin: I think no-one ever claimed othewise ;)
14:51:45 <rosmaita> nikhil_k: ++
14:51:51 <flaper87> nikhil_k: agreed there
14:52:07 <nikhil_k> and I think the API_WG has that guideline on separate resource
14:52:35 <nikhil_k> so it seems like more balance on PATCH but then we may get yelled at for not being consistent
14:52:42 <nikhil_k> I'd rather support both if not a issue
14:53:13 <mfedosin> I remember sigmavirus24_awa was complaining about having both
14:53:20 <nikhil_k> well not a "critical issue"
14:53:23 <jokke_> nikhil_k: I think the big thing is, regardless other guidelines, that we will be crusified if we drop either of those API doing that
14:53:36 <flaper87> jokke_: ++
14:53:37 <nikhil_k> jokke_: haha, yeah.
14:53:48 <nikhil_k> jokke_: but there are plans for the same for tasks..
14:53:55 <jokke_> nikhil_k: same with the image import work. We can't just kill what we have
14:54:04 <nikhil_k> so, that puts me in dilemma
14:54:19 <flaper87> well, we're not deleting tasks, though
14:54:20 <jokke_> nikhil_k: nope, we can't drop it ... we can disable it by default, but we're stuck with the api itself
14:54:40 <flaper87> we turned them off by default and marked the API as deprecated but it gotta stay there
14:54:59 <nikhil_k> I thought I read that we wanted to get rid of the tasks!?
14:55:10 <jokke_> and with tasks there was really pressing reasoning for it, which of I don't see at least yet for tags
14:55:10 <flaper87> nikhil_k: oh that was probably me in a moment of rage
14:55:16 <flaper87> :P
14:55:17 <nikhil_k> flaper87: so deprecated for may be a decade and then we just let people forget about it?
14:55:50 <nikhil_k> flaper87: ah ha. hush, I won't speak of it again with anyone then. And now I am not sure whom I told that tasks is getting deleted :P
14:56:01 <jokke_> nikhil_k: if it ever bitrots to goo we can't identify anymore, maybe :P
14:56:22 <flaper87> nikhil_k: it's a gradual process and the discussion of removing an endpoint has to happen for OpenStack in general
14:56:31 <flaper87> the current agreement is we never ever ever ever delete an endpoint
14:56:35 <flaper87> but we can deprecate things
14:56:41 <flaper87> and advice people against that
14:56:41 <nikhil_k> jokke_: ha!
14:56:58 <flaper87> We can ignore bugs on deprecated endpoints, etc
14:57:34 <nikhil_k> and this is true just for the API for for libraries too?
14:57:39 <flaper87> I think, eventually, removing stuff will make sense but that's a broader discussion and I'll need beer for that ,coffee is not enough
14:57:48 <nikhil_k> I'm may be reading ahead of the store refactor proposal
14:57:49 <flaper87> nikhil_k: HTTP APIs
14:58:12 <nikhil_k> flaper87: heh, nice
14:58:16 <flaper87> libraries can evolve and should evolve :)
14:58:21 <flaper87> ok, we're out of time
14:58:28 <jokke_> glance_store restful API :P
14:58:39 <nikhil_k> fun
14:58:41 * flaper87 throws tomatoes at jokke_
14:58:47 <flaper87> THANKS EVERYONE!
14:58:49 <flaper87> #endmeeting