Open Stack

+1 for Triangel

On 2 September 2016 at 17:34, joehuang <joehuang at huawei.com> wrote:

> After the discussion in the #openstack-tricircle channel, 3 candidates
> available now, please vote the name for the new sub-project for api-gateway
> functionality:
>
> 1. Triangel
>     The Triangel are dolls that bring luck
> 2. Tridonut
>     Three Donuts. Delicious food, often buy 3 get 1 free.
> 3. Trifennel
>     Three Fennel. Fennel is highly prized for its licorice-like flavor and
> the myriad of health benefits it provides
>
> Best Regards
> Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)
>
>
> *From:* joehuang
> *Sent:* 02 September 2016 11:19
> *To:* openstack-dev; mordred at inaugust.com
> *Subject:* RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of
> networking and gateway sub-projects
>
> I have some rough ideas about the name of gateway sub-project, for
> example, triangle, tridonut, tricookie etc, so that we can see that
> Tricircle and the new sub-project are like sibling in OpenStack. And they
> often will be listed closely in order.
>
> Your thoughts?
>
> Best Regards
> Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* joehuang
> *Sent:* 02 September 2016 10:22
> *To:* openstack-dev; mordred at inaugust.com
> *Subject:* [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of
> networking and gateway sub-projects
>
> Hello,
>
> If we want to divide Tricircle into two sub-projects, your proposals for
> the name of sub-projects are welcome.
>
> Because the Tricircle is applying big-tent application, and the networking
> part will be remained in the Tricircle repository, and continue the
> big-tent application. So if we change the networking sub-project name from
> "Tricircle" to another one, we have to update a lots of places: from infra,
> to source code, to documentation, google docs, to wiki, etc, it's a huge
> work, and history background will also be lost, from this point of view, I
> proposal to remain current Tricircle repository name, but shrink the
> Tricircle scope to cross Neutron networking automation.
>
> And for gateway part, a new repository is required, new project name is
> more applicable, this is just my thoughts, would like to know your
> proposals.
>
> Best Regards
> Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)
>
> ________________________________________
> From: joehuang
> Sent: 01 September 2016 9:02
> To: Monty Taylor; openstack-dev
> Subject: RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in
> Tricircle big-tent application
>
> Hello, Monty,
>
> Thank you very much for your guide and encouragement, then let's move on
> this direction.
>
> Best regards
> Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
> ________________________________________
> From: Monty Taylor [mordred at inaugust.com]
> Sent: 01 September 2016 0:37
> To: joehuang; openstack-dev
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in
> Tricircle big-tent application
>
> On 08/31/2016 02:16 AM, joehuang wrote:
> > Hello, team,
> >
> > During last weekly meeting, we discussed how to address TCs concerns in
> > Tricircle big-tent application. After the weekly meeting, the proposal
> > was co-prepared by our
> > contributors: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_
> rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E
> >
> > The more doable way is to divide Tricircle into two independent and
> > decoupled projects, only one of the projects which deal with networking
> > automation will try to become an big-tent project, And Nova/Cinder
> > API-GW will be removed from the scope of big-tent project application,
> > and put them into another project:
> >
> > *TricircleNetworking:* Dedicated for cross Neutron networking automation
> > in multi-region OpenStack deployment, run without or with
> > TricircleGateway. Try to become big-tent project in the current
> > application of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/.
>
> Great idea.
>
> > *TricircleGateway:* Dedicated to provide API gateway for those who need
> > single Nova/Cinder API endpoint in multi-region OpenStack deployment,
> > run without or with TricircleNetworking. Live as non-big-tent,
> > non-offical-openstack project, just like Tricircle toady’s status. And
> > not pursue big-tent only if the consensus can be achieved in OpenStack
> > community, including Arch WG and TCs, then decide how to get it on board
> > in OpenStack. A new repository is needed to be applied for this project.
> >
> >
> > And consider to remove some overlapping implementation in Nova/Cinder
> > API-GW for global objects like flavor, volume type, we can configure one
> > region as master region, all global objects like flavor, volume type,
> > server group, etc will be managed in the master Nova/Cinder service. In
> > Nova API-GW/Cinder API-GW, all requests for these global objects will be
> > forwarded to the master Nova/Cinder, then to get rid of any API
> > overlapping-implementation.
> >
> > More information, you can refer to the proposal draft
> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_
> rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E,
> >
> > your thoughts are welcome, and let's have more discussion in this weekly
> > meeting.
>
> I think this is a great approach Joe.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160904/47fd4d5c/attachment.html>