Comment 7 for bug 1383973

Hi Stuart,

Yes, it's a sensible solution, I'm thinking the details of this approach to make sure it's a best solution for this defect, it has some costs, e.g. how to get and handle these 'placeholder'/earlier location, and a little concerned on if this way can keep backward-compatible for glance code and client, e.g. not sure glance existing logics check image status instead of len(image.locations), outside as well, e.g. to make sure image under 'active' status before consume location data from metadata.

Thanks.