You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@libcloud.apache.org by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org> on 2010/02/02 22:39:56 UTC
[libcloud] blockers for first release
I'd like to get us to ship a first release at the ASF in the next week
or two, so I'm trying to figure out what we need to 'fix' before
making a release.
To me, anything that we know we want to do, and breaks the API should
be considered a blocker. Anything that adds to the API, like a new
kwarg, is fine to add in a later release, and won't break existing
applications.
>From an ASF legal/policy side, I think we are currently passing the RAT tests.
my list:
potential blockers:
- Removal of Zope Interfaces. People talked about it, but no code
was committed.
- Location aware Sizes / Images support. I believe this could be
done by adding an optional Location kwarg to list_sizes and
list_images
non-blockers:
- Firewall Configurations (Some Discussion on the list, security
groups are exposed in ec2 in the interim)
- Provider Support (Voxel is close I think, few others could sneak in
if done quickly)
Thoughts from the crowd?
Thanks,
Paul
Re: [libcloud] blockers for first release
Posted by Soren Hansen <so...@ubuntu.com>.
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 03:02:25PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
>>> Thoughts from the crowd?
>> I'm working on this CLI tool[1] for libcloud, but I'm not completely
>> sure we want it included in libcloud, since it doesn't expose all of
>> libcloud's functionality (anything provider specific is not exposed
>> at all at the moment).
>> [1]: https://launchpad.net/~soren/libcloud/cloudctl
>
> Isn't the fact that it doesn't expose provider specific things.... just fine?
>
> I certainly see a bundled tool like that being something we should
> include, and very useful to get people going.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just spoiled by other libraries that ship with
CLI utils that expose /everything/ the library in question does :)
At the very least it will need to grow some location awareness before
it's really useful, I think.
--
Soren Hansen |
Lead virtualisation engineer | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/
Re: [libcloud] blockers for first release
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Soren Hansen <so...@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:39:56PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
>> From an ASF legal/policy side, I think we are currently passing the
>> RAT tests.
>
> I have no clue what this means. Could any of the code changes we
> discussing affect this, or is this more of an organisational status?
RAT is a tool the ASF uses to check if a release contains only validly
licensed files:
<http://incubator.apache.org/rat/>
libcloud's current output is here:
<http://ci.apache.org/projects/libcloud/rat-output.txt>
>> potential blockers:
>> - Removal of Zope Interfaces. People talked about it, but no code
>> was committed.
>
> I don't feel strongly about this at all. IIRC, the primary argument was
> that it might be difficult for people to fulfill this dependency. I
> question the validity of this concern:
>
> * Looking at http://download.zope.org/distribution/ it seems clear that
> the Zope interface code is distributed separately, and is even
> available as an egg, so you don't have to mess around with a full Zope
> stack just to get to the interface code.
> * Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora all provide this as a package.
> * Have we actually have anyone complain about this, or are we just
> assuming that this is difficult for people?
>
> Sorry about not chiming in on this sooner. I was otherwise engaged when
> the discussion went on last time. :)
>
>> Thoughts from the crowd?
>
> I'm working on this CLI tool[1] for libcloud, but I'm not completely
> sure we want it included in libcloud, since it doesn't expose all of
> libcloud's functionality (anything provider specific is not exposed at
> all at the moment).
>
> [1]: https://launchpad.net/~soren/libcloud/cloudctl
Isn't the fact that it doesn't expose provider specific things.... just fine?
I certainly see a bundled tool like that being something we should
include, and very useful to get people going.
Re: [libcloud] blockers for first release
Posted by Soren Hansen <so...@ubuntu.com>.
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:39:56PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
> From an ASF legal/policy side, I think we are currently passing the
> RAT tests.
I have no clue what this means. Could any of the code changes we
discussing affect this, or is this more of an organisational status?
> potential blockers:
> - Removal of Zope Interfaces. People talked about it, but no code
> was committed.
I don't feel strongly about this at all. IIRC, the primary argument was
that it might be difficult for people to fulfill this dependency. I
question the validity of this concern:
* Looking at http://download.zope.org/distribution/ it seems clear that
the Zope interface code is distributed separately, and is even
available as an egg, so you don't have to mess around with a full Zope
stack just to get to the interface code.
* Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora all provide this as a package.
* Have we actually have anyone complain about this, or are we just
assuming that this is difficult for people?
Sorry about not chiming in on this sooner. I was otherwise engaged when
the discussion went on last time. :)
> Thoughts from the crowd?
I'm working on this CLI tool[1] for libcloud, but I'm not completely
sure we want it included in libcloud, since it doesn't expose all of
libcloud's functionality (anything provider specific is not exposed at
all at the moment).
[1]: https://launchpad.net/~soren/libcloud/cloudctl
--
Soren Hansen |
Lead virtualisation engineer | Ubuntu Server Team
Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/
Re: [libcloud] blockers for first release
Posted by Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org>.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Tom White <to...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Thanks for organizing the release.
>
> LIBCLOUD-5 (Fix Terremark provider following XML namespace changes) is
> a blocker for me since without it Terremark is broken.
Thanks for pointing that out, committed to trunk in r905838:
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=905838
Thanks,
Paul
Re: [libcloud] blockers for first release
Posted by Tom White <to...@cloudera.com>.
Paul,
Thanks for organizing the release.
LIBCLOUD-5 (Fix Terremark provider following XML namespace changes) is
a blocker for me since without it Terremark is broken.
Cheers,
Tom
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Paul Querna <pa...@querna.org> wrote:
> I'd like to get us to ship a first release at the ASF in the next week
> or two, so I'm trying to figure out what we need to 'fix' before
> making a release.
>
> To me, anything that we know we want to do, and breaks the API should
> be considered a blocker. Anything that adds to the API, like a new
> kwarg, is fine to add in a later release, and won't break existing
> applications.
>
> From an ASF legal/policy side, I think we are currently passing the RAT tests.
>
> my list:
>
> potential blockers:
> - Removal of Zope Interfaces. People talked about it, but no code
> was committed.
> - Location aware Sizes / Images support. I believe this could be
> done by adding an optional Location kwarg to list_sizes and
> list_images
>
> non-blockers:
> - Firewall Configurations (Some Discussion on the list, security
> groups are exposed in ec2 in the interim)
> - Provider Support (Voxel is close I think, few others could sneak in
> if done quickly)
>
> Thoughts from the crowd?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul
>