173 lines
8.6 KiB
Plaintext
173 lines
8.6 KiB
Plaintext
Hello everyone,
|
|
|
|
I would like to announce my candidacy for the role of PTL of Glance for
|
|
the Ocata cycle.
|
|
|
|
Current State of Glance
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
This is a good time to be PTL of Glance. The project has recently
|
|
served as the incubator for a successful project (Searchlight) and a
|
|
hopefully soon-to-be successful project (Glare), and at this point we
|
|
can focus on being Glance [0]. In Newton, the Images v1 API is being
|
|
deprecated [1] and Nova will be using the v2 API by default [2], which
|
|
allows us to focus even further.
|
|
|
|
Glance has some important efforts in progress that need to be seen
|
|
through to completion, so given the short upcoming cycle, I anticipate
|
|
quick agreement in determining our Ocata priorities. In short, I see
|
|
myself as a "continuity" candidate, building on the good work done by
|
|
Flavio and Nikhil in the previous cycles.
|
|
|
|
Glance Priorities
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
This is how I see things shaping up for Ocata.
|
|
|
|
1. Image Import
|
|
|
|
The Glance image import refactoring proposal [3] has been discussed
|
|
thoroughly through two cycles by all OpenStack groups and individuals
|
|
interested in a discoverable, interoperable means of getting end-user
|
|
created images into OpenStack clouds of various types (public/private,
|
|
large/small). There are some patches up, and Nikhil has indicated
|
|
that image import is a priority for post RC-1 time; I want us to
|
|
continue that work and deliver image import in Ocata.
|
|
|
|
2. Community Images
|
|
|
|
Implementation of the Community Images spec [4], approved for Newton,
|
|
has been delayed, in large part due to reviewer bandwidth issues (which
|
|
I'll address below). It's a much-requested feature, has several
|
|
patches up, and is a priority to deliver early in Ocata.
|
|
|
|
3. Rolling Upgrades
|
|
|
|
The OpenStack Innovation Center has been promoting various operator
|
|
friendly enhancements to OpenStack, one of which is zero-downtime
|
|
control plane upgrades. Several Glance developers associated with OSIC
|
|
have been working out a strategy (and some alternatives) to make this
|
|
happen in Glance [5,6]. I expect we'll be able to converge on a
|
|
strategy during (or shortly after) the Barcelona Summit with the goal
|
|
of having a zero-downtime Newton-to-Ocata upgrade available in Ocata.
|
|
|
|
(These three items are high-impact for operators and end users, so are
|
|
appropriately our top three Ocata priorities. I have serious concerns
|
|
about Glance being able to deliver more than this in Ocata, so please
|
|
notice the caveats attached to the following items.)
|
|
|
|
4. Community Priorities
|
|
|
|
The TC recently adopted "community goals" for each cycle [7], and as a
|
|
good community citizen, the Glance project will want to adopt these as
|
|
priorities for Ocata. The goal "remove copies of incubated Oslo code"
|
|
[8] primarily affects the python-glanceclient. The goal "support
|
|
python 3.5" [9] is still under discussion in the wider community, with
|
|
some projects reporting that it will be a stretch to implement in
|
|
Ocata. It will also be a stretch for Glance given our resource
|
|
constraints. (I think the major impact for Glance will be in getting
|
|
the functional tests to pass under Python 3.5, but I haven't done a
|
|
complete analysis of this.)
|
|
|
|
5. Other
|
|
|
|
As noted earlier, this is a short cycle. The above is quite a list,
|
|
though that's mitigated a bit by some of the items already being in
|
|
progress. There are some other candidates for Glance priorities that
|
|
we can discuss carefully at the Summit [10], in particular, the Glance
|
|
Store Refactor and Hierarchical Image Access. Personally, I would like
|
|
to see us at least (a) come to a consensus on, and (b) articulate
|
|
clearly the envisioned usage of the glance_store library during the
|
|
Summit as that will be helpful in guiding the refactoring of its API
|
|
and guide its future development (whether or not that development
|
|
happens in Ocata). Hierarchical Image Access would complete the Glance
|
|
image sharing use cases, and shouldn't be too bad to implement given
|
|
the changes made for the Community Images implementation, but we need
|
|
to make a realistic assessment of this at the Summit.
|
|
|
|
Finally, the glance-specs repo contains some approved but not
|
|
implemented specs and lite-specs. These are useful items (or they
|
|
wouldn't have been approved in the first place!). They will also have
|
|
to be the subject of a realistic assessment during the Summit.
|
|
|
|
Glance Community
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
I said earlier that this is a good time to be Glance PTL; it's also a
|
|
good time to join the Glance community, particularly for ambitious
|
|
developers who would like to achieve core status on one of the major
|
|
OpenStack projects. We need more reviewers as, right now, most of the
|
|
core reviewers for Glance have additional commitments.
|
|
|
|
Although we need more reviewers, I don't want to "clean house" because
|
|
our core reviewers represent a cross-section of the community and bring
|
|
a lot of expertise in varying realms to the project [11]. Neither do I
|
|
want to introduce any kind of "fast track" to becoming a Glance core
|
|
contributor. So what's this great opportunity I'm talking about?
|
|
|
|
What I would like to do is request that core reviewers concentrate on
|
|
patches associated with declared Glance priorities, and not review
|
|
other patches unless they already have been +1'd. That way, our
|
|
priorities get the attention they need, and people working toward core
|
|
can demonstrate the quality of their code reviews independently of a
|
|
core reviewer having already looked at the code. Further, a thoughtful
|
|
-1 with good suggestions is probably the most useful kind of review, so
|
|
I'd like to allow noncores the first crack at demonstrating their
|
|
competency by posting some thoughtful -1 reviews along the way to a
|
|
patch getting a +1. Additionally, not all the cross-project liasons
|
|
need to be core reviewers, so where appropriate, serving as a
|
|
cross-project liason is another way for developers who want to
|
|
eventually become cores to step up and take more responsibility for the
|
|
project. (We'll be reviewing the cross-project liason expectations and
|
|
commitments [12] very early in the Ocata cycle.)
|
|
|
|
(Basically what I'm saying is that Glance needs some new core
|
|
reviewers, and we're arranging things to help facilitate motivated
|
|
developers in this regard.)
|
|
|
|
As far as process goes, I don't anticipate any major changes. The spec
|
|
and spec-lite process for Glance has evolved over the past few cycles
|
|
and seems to be working OK.
|
|
|
|
About Me
|
|
--------
|
|
|
|
I've been an ATC to OpenStack since Folsom. I'm currently a core for
|
|
Glance and Searchlight. I've worked with Glance both from the
|
|
perspective of a product manager and (currently) as a software
|
|
developer. I've been around the project for a while and have
|
|
represented Glance in interactions with various teams, for example, the
|
|
API WG, the Product WG, the documentation team, OSIC, and DefCore. My
|
|
"real life" cloud experience has been working with large scale clouds,
|
|
namely the Rackspace First Generation Cloud and the current OpenStack
|
|
based Rackspace Public Cloud. I've spoken with my managers and, if
|
|
elected, I will be able to work upstream full time.
|
|
|
|
I have a real passion for working on OpenStack, especially Glance,
|
|
which I know some people think is crazy, but there it is. Glance is an
|
|
important part of the OpenStack ecosystem and it has a community of
|
|
high-quality contributors who I've always enjoyed working with. I'm
|
|
asking you for the opportunity to work with the Glance community in a
|
|
new way as Glance PTL for the Ocata release.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reading this far. Before I shut up, I'd like to thank all
|
|
the Stackers I've spoken with over the past few weeks, as a lot of the
|
|
ideas presented above come from those conversations.
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your consideration,
|
|
Brian Rosmaita
|
|
|
|
[0] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/?id=0b1da15253d50d6486bf60d87205e5c796662646
|
|
[1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/glance/commit/?id=63e6dbb1eb006758fbcf7cae83e1d2eacf46b4ab
|
|
[2] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova/commit/?id=f71cd2ca03693655efdbd1109f406ab6f3b58ee6
|
|
[3] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/mitaka/approved/image-import/image-import-refactor.html
|
|
[4] http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/glance-specs/specs/newton/approved/glance/community_visibility.html
|
|
[5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/331489/
|
|
[6] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/331740/
|
|
[7] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/?id=5118d1246482b1d44d8960c2b3b89e96d467cb28
|
|
[8] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/commit/?id=eacf3167a7b8f2f8808b0168de8528cbd81f61f1
|
|
[9] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/349069/
|
|
[10] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-glance-summit-planning
|
|
[11] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/094221.html
|
|
[12] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CrossProjectLiaisons
|