<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mestery <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mestery@noironetworks.com" target="_blank">mestery@noironetworks.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div class="h5">On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:27 AM, James E. Blair <<a href="mailto:jeblair@openstack.org">jeblair@openstack.org</a>> wrote:<br>


> Hi,<br>
><br>
> With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think<br>
> about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should<br>
> stick with codenames for the spec repos.  The codenames are actually<br>
> more discoverable for potential contributors and collaborators.  If<br>
> you're looking for the place to submit a spec for swift-bench, you're<br>
> much more likely to find the 'swift-specs' repo than 'object-specs'.<br>
> And while some of our older programs have nice catchy names, the newer<br>
> ones can be a mouthful.  Here's a list of likely names based on the<br>
> program name:<br>
><br>
> Program Names<br>
> -------------<br>
> compute-specs<br>
> object-specs<br>
> image-specs<br>
> identity-specs<br>
> dashboard-specs<br>
> networking-specs<br>
> volume-specs<br>
> telemetry-specs<br>
> orchestration-specs<br>
> database-specs<br>
> baremetal-specs<br>
> common-libraries-specs<br>
> infra-specs<br>
> docs-specs<br>
> qa-specs<br>
> deployment-specs<br>
> devstack-specs<br>
> release-management-specs<br>
> queue-specs<br>
> data-processing-specs<br>
> key-management-specs<br>
><br>
> Note that "database-specs" is potentially quite confusing.<br>
><br>
> And here's a list based on the program's codename:<br>
><br>
> Codenames<br>
> ---------<br>
> nova-specs<br>
> swift-specs<br>
> glance-specs<br>
> keystone-specs<br>
> horizon-specs<br>
> neutron-specs<br>
> cinder-specs<br>
> ceilometer-specs<br>
> heat-specs<br>
> trove-specs<br>
> ironic-specs<br>
> oslo-specs<br>
> infra-specs<br>
> docs-specs<br>
> qa-specs<br>
> tripleo-specs<br>
> devstack-specs<br>
> release-management-specs<br>
> marconi-specs<br>
> sahara-specs<br>
> barbican-specs<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 for project names </div><div><br></div><div>(Believe it or not, I think it's the correct answer here, see my line of reasoning from this week's project meeting log </div>

<div> <a href="http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-05-20-21.03.log.html">http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-05-20-21.03.log.html</a>) </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class=""><div class="h5">
><br>
> When I look at the two of those, I have to admit that it's the second<br>
> one I find more intuitive and I'm pretty sure I'll end up calling it<br>
> 'sahara-specs' in common usage no matter the name.<br>
><br>
> -Jim<br>
><br>
</div></div>+1 from me. It's more obvious to use program names here.<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>