Zane Bitter wrote:
On 19/03/19 5:45 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
4) Create several namespaces to match the OpenStack map[1] buckets:
- openstack/ to hold first-level components in the central box - openstack-operations/ to hold operational tooling from the rights box
The line between these two is extremely blurry. (e.g. Monasca includes some of the same functionality as Aodh, but they're in different boxes.) I don't think it would be helpful to have them in separate namespaces.
I agree that the distinction on the map is more product-marketing than technical, so it might be better not to have that bleed over repository names.
[...]
- openstack-dev/ for all repositories that we end up creating in order to get things done but have otherwise no relationship with the end product
This exists already, of course. Is there anything that you think should be in it but is not?
A lot of stuff! We create a lot of repositories in the process of producing "OpenStack software". - Governance repositories like openstack/governance or election - Team repositories like openstack/auto-scaling-sig or transparency-policy - Meta repositories like openstack/releases or requirements - Tools repositories like openstack/goal-tools or uc-recognition In addition to that, several openstack-infra repositories are very OpenStack-specific and would likely not migrate to an opendev/ namespace: - QA-oriented infra repos like openstack-infra/devstack-gate - OpenStack-specific repos like openstack-infra/openstack-zuul-jobs Finally, specs repositories could also be considered a development process by-product thing. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx)