<html><body><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 10 November 2015 at 15:08, Tzu-Mainn Chen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tzumainn@redhat.com" target="_blank">tzumainn@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi all,<br><br>
At the last IRC meeting it was agreed that the new TripleO REST API<br>
should forgo the Tuskar name, and simply be called... the TripleO<br>
API. There's one more point of discussion: where should the API<br>
live? There are two possibilities:<br><br>
a) Put it in tripleo-common, where the business logic lives. If we<br>
do this, it would make sense to rename tripleo-common to simply<br>
tripleo.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1 - I think this makes most sense if we are not going to support the tripleo repo as a library.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Okay, this seems to be the consensus, which is great.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The leftover question is how to package the renamed repo. 'tripleo' is already intuitively in use by tripleo-incubator.<br></div><div>In IRC, bnemec and trown suggested splitting the renamed repo into two packages - 'python-tripleo' and 'tripleo-api',<br></div><div>which seems sensible to me.<br></div><div><br></div><div>What do others think?<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Mainn<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
b) Put it in its own repo, tripleo-api<br><br><br>
The first option made a lot of sense to people on IRC, as the proposed<br>
API is a very thin layer that's bound closely to the code in tripleo-<br>
common. The major objection is that renaming is not trivial; however<br>
it was mentioned that renaming might not be *too* bad... as long as<br>
it's done sooner rather than later.<br><br>
What do people think?<br><br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Tzu-Mainn Chen<br><br>
__________________________________________________________________________<br>
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe</a><br><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>__________________________________________________________________________<br>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe<br>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev<br></blockquote><div><br></div></div></body></html>