I agree with the majority so far that option 3 looks ideal but 2 looks more realistic as far as what we can get done easily. Who would be on the hook to do the actual work here? I'm happy to sign someone else up for work I guess, but I'd like to know who it is so I can buy them a beverage to alleviate my guilt. ;) --Adam On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 06:27 Nate Johnston <nate.johnston@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 04:49:47PM -0400, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
2) Move unofficial projects to "stackforge" or some other namespace, which is only a small amount of work to list the repositories, but probably a large amount of bikeshedding^Wdiscussion to come up with a name.
3) Do (2), but also namespace the OpenStack projects in a more fine-grained manner, by project team. For example: nova/nova, ironic/bifrost, etc. This is a larger chunk of work, but looks a bit nicer. Also makes it easier to move a project out of OpenStack later, as we don't have to move namespaces. This has an open question of whether we use one large namespace for unofficial projects, or give them each their own. It also has a downside of making more effort to move a repository between project teams, though I think that's fairly rare.
From the perspective of one who works in the Neutron Stadium, it would be really convenient to have those projects under a 'neutron' space so that it was obviously clear to everyone what is in or out of the Stadium - even for projects that don't necessarily look neutron-related based on the name, like os-ken or ovsdbapp.
Nate