Open Stack

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Flavio Percoco <flavio at redhat.com> wrote:

> On 24/11/13 12:47 -0500, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Morgan Fainberg <m at metacloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    In all honesty it doesn't matter which term we go with.  As long as we
>> are
>>    consistent and define the meaning.  I think we can argue intuitive vs
>>    non-intuitive in this case unto the ground.  I prefer "project" to
>> tenant,
>>    but beyond being a bit of an "overloaded" term, I really don't think
>> anyone
>>    will really notice one way or another as long as everything is using
>> the
>>    same terminology.  We could call it "grouping-of-openstack-things" if
>> we
>>    wanted to (though I might have to pull some hair out if we go to that
>>    terminology).      However, with all that in mind, we have made the
>> choice to move toward
>>    project (horizon, keystone, OSC, keystoneclient) and have some momentum
>>    behind that push (plus newer projects already use the project
>>    nomenclature).   Making a change back to tenant might prove a worse UX
>> than
>>    moving everything else in line (nova I think is the one real major
>> hurdle
>>    to get converted over, and deprecation of keystone v2 API).
>>
>> FWIW, ceilometer also uses project in our API (although some of our docs
>> use
>> the terms interchangeably).
>>
>
> And, FWIW, Marconi uses project as well.
>
>
Well project seems to be the way everyone is heading long term.  So we'll
do this for the Nova
V3 API.  As others have mentioned, I think the most important this is that
we all end up using
the same terminology (though with the long life of APIs we're stuck with
the both for a few years
at least).

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131126/b48a4c17/attachment.html>