Open Stack

RH was totally arbitrary - we used RH since Adam worked for RedHat, and previously we've named extensions for the company that the employee that proposed it.

- joe

On Mar 22, 2013, at 6:10 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:57 +0100, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 06:23 -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>>>> Why is the name of the extension prefixed with "RH-"?  I take it that it
>>>> stands for "Red Hat".  What's the reasoning for the name?  It strikes me
>>>> as quite odd.
>>>> 
>>>> It's not a Red Hat specific feature.  If it is seen that way then it
>>>> seems like it should just be removed until a solution is in place that
>>>> is seen as generally useful.
>>> 
>>> This makes no sense to me either and neither the commit message nor the
>>> review gives any real insight into the rationale.
>> 
>> I suspect it's historical, linked to the way extensions were named in
>> the past... and not an assignment or a judgment on quality.
>> 
>> IMO extensions that are grown in-tree shouldn't have to use a company
>> prefix, since we all vouch for them... but I'm lacking a bit of history
>> and reference doc about extension naming to actually tell how much room
>> we have for maneuver here.
> 
> Right ... it's an API produced by OpenStack, if it needs a namespace to
> live in it should be an OpenStack namespace not a Red Hat namespace.
> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev