Open Stack

Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On 06/02/2015 07:54 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> Please, no. We should not have ops tags that are different than other
>> tags for no good reason.
> 
> Let me put it another way:
> 
> I think there is a good reason for Operators to look for information
> about a project that is more descriptive than the current definition of
> project tags.
> 
> Whether the tags can be expanded or if a different approach is needed to
> display such information I don't know.  I would expect operators to be
> interested to know the details of what 'is-packaged' mean: are packages
> available in my favorite distro? how often are they built? If that
> information is not in the tag itself, then it should be visible
> somewhere else.

It's visible in the tag description. Each tag is backed by a precise
definition that explains what the tag means.

Tags as designed are labels, not metrics. We define what "well-packaged"
means, and then apply that label to projects that fit the bill.

If we mix the messaging by making tags be both labels and metrics, then
it will be extra-hard to make a project navigation website to expose both.

That said, the Ops tags WG is pretty much on the same line -- the
discussion we had in Vancouver was that we should define subjectively
what "well-packaged" means, and than apply it objectively. Same for the
other ops tags. So I think we are actually on the same line...

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)