<div dir="ltr"><div>><span style="font-size:12.8px">Do you mean OpenStack developers, OpenStack customers, or OpenStack code?</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">All of them. Lots of us still say 'tenant' because that's what it was for quite a while. However, with keystone and the other projects referring to 'projects' which have 'project_ids', it creates inconsistency when Neutron is still based on 'tenant_id' (e.g. "does tenant_id mean user_id or project_id?").</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">><span style="font-size:12.8px">I'm not sure what you mean here.</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Neutron is inconsistent with openstack now. We can't claim we are striving for consistency when using the term 'tenant', which is what you were implying with the reference to the rest of the networking world.</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">><span style="font-size:12.8px">Dariusz asked for feedback, and I believe it's valid and useful for me </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">to give my intuitive feedback without having to read up on the history </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">first.</span><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It wasn't just the history, it's the whole justification for the move. I can definitely see why you would be against it though if you thought it was for no reason.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">><span style="font-size:12.8px">and noted a couple of points:</span></div><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">>1. The text here twice says "multi-tenant isolation", not "multi-project</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">isolation".</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">>2. This whole renaming proposal apparently stems from an internal</span><br style="font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">confusion in keystone?</span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">None of this matters. It was decided a long time ago to use 'project' and the other projects have switched. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Neil Jerram <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Neil.Jerram@metaswitch.com" target="_blank">Neil.Jerram@metaswitch.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"><span class="">On 04/12/15 18:03, Kevin Benton wrote:<br>
> >The whole world says 'tenant' for the 'tenant' concept, particularly<br>
> in the context of networking. Changing to a different term is just<br>
> silly.<br>
><br>
> Except for the rest of OpenStack.<br>
<br>
</span>Do you mean OpenStack developers, OpenStack customers, or OpenStack code?<br>
<br>
OpenStack developers mostly say 'tenant', I'd say from my following of<br>
the ML.<br>
<br>
All the OpenStack users/operators/customers that I've interacted with,<br>
say 'tenant'.<br>
<br>
As far as code is concerned, I'm fine with any initiative to align the<br>
Neutron code better with other OpenStack code - but only so long as this<br>
is change that doesn't cause pain and loss of back-compatibility. Even<br>
the merge pain from this change may be substantial, let alone that from<br>
API changes.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Consistency is the one argument we can't use as a reason not to switch<br>
> to project.<br>
<br>
</span>I'm not sure what you mean here.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Please read the blueprint and the email it links<br>
> to: <a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/rename-tenant-to-project" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/rename-tenant-to-project</a><br>
<br>
</span>Dariusz asked for feedback, and I believe it's valid and useful for me<br>
to give my intuitive feedback without having to read up on the history<br>
first.<br>
<br>
Also it seems likely to me that the fact that this work hasn't happened,<br>
for two years, is a reflection of most people not really wanting it. I<br>
thought it might be helpful to get that out in the open.<br>
<br>
That said, I did look at some of the history -<br>
<a href="https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg09709.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg09709.html</a>:<br>
<br>
> +1 for using the term "project" across all services. Projects provide<br>
> multi-tenant isolation for resources across the cloud. Part of the reason<br>
> we prefer "projects" in keystone is that "domains" conceptually provide<br>
> multi-tenant isolation within keystone itself, so the overloaded "tenant"<br>
> terminology gets really confusing.<br>
<br>
and noted a couple of points:<br>
<br>
1. The text here twice says "multi-tenant isolation", not "multi-project<br>
isolation".<br>
<br>
2. This whole renaming proposal apparently stems from an internal<br>
confusion in keystone?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"> Neil<br>
<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div>Kevin Benton</div></div>
</div></div>