Open Stack

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>    On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>
>>> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>        Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
>>>>        'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron,
>>>    because
>>>>        they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or
>>    another (e.g.
>>>>        having 3rd-party, extending-api,
>>    integrating-via-plugin-model,
>>>>        etc)? Then we could simply consider extending the
>>>    projects.yaml
>>>>        to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any
>>    other project)
>>>>        once we defined its ontology.
>>>> 
>>>>        Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    That seems interesting, but given the communities stated
>>    goals
>>>>    around Big Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not,
>>    adding
>>>>    these under the Neutron tent, inside the larger
>>    OpenStack Bigger
>>>>    Tent, would be a good thing.
>>>> 
>>>>    Thanks,
>>>>    Kyle
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should
>>>    stress the
>>>> fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home
>>    for these
>>>> projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems
>>    like
>>>    we're
>>>> still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a
>>    point where
>>>> the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us
>>>    make a
>>>> more informed decision compared to the one we can make right
>>    now.
>>> 
>>>    Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and
>>    would help
>>>    make you feel more informed?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am not clear on how we make a decision, as to which project
>>    belongs or
>>> doesn't to the Neutron 'umbrella', 'tent', 'stadium' or however we end
>>> up calling it :)
>> 
>>    OK, that's fine.  Figuring that out is the next step if folks agree with
>>    Neutron as the home for networking-foo repos.  I'm happy to write up a
>>    strawman proposal for inclusion criteria and a set of expectations
>>    around responsibilities and communication.
>> 
>> 
>> What about the other Neutron related ones that didn't strictly follow
>> the networking- prefix in the name, would the naming convention be one
>> of the criteria? I look forward to your proposal.
> 
> Good question.  I think consistency is good, especially when there are
> so many of them.  It helps make it clear that they're all following some
> sort of pattern.  Luckily we do have a way to get repos renamed if needed.

There is one existing project, stackforge/octavia, which is quite active and has used its codename extensively. Suggested naming I’d be ok with, but enforced naming seems… confining.

Thanks,
doug


> 
> -- 
> Russell Bryant
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev