Open Stack

Not sure what you are talking about? You claim now that you had
suggestion which was not considered, yet you +2'ed a patch, by stating
that "All looks good to me!".

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com> wrote:
> That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a smartest
> reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t.
>
> Edgar
>
> On 8/6/14, 10:55 AM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Edgar, you seemed to have +2'ed this patch on July 2nd [1]:
>>
>>"
>>Edgar Magana
>>Jul 2 8:42 AM
>>
>>Patch Set 13: Code-Review+2
>>
>>All looks good to me! I am not approving yet because Nachi was also
>>reviewing this code and I would like to see his opinion as well.
>>"
>>
>>That would suggest that you were happy with what was in it. I don't
>>see anything in the review comments that suggests otherwise.
>>
>>[1]  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95900/
>>
>>On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com>
>>wrote:
>>> This is the consequence of a proposal that is not following the
>>>standardized
>>> terminology (IETF - RFC) for any Policy-based System:
>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3198
>>>
>>> Well, I did bring  this point during the Hong Kong Summit but as you
>>>can see
>>> my comments were totally ignored:
>>>
>>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIr
>>>upCD9E/edit
>>>
>>> I clearly saw this kind of issues coming. Let me quote myself what I
>>> suggested: "For instance: "endpoints" should be "enforcement point"
>>>
>>> I do not understand why GBP did not include this suggestionŠ
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>> From: Kevin Benton <blak111 at gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM
>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way
>>> forward
>>>
>>> What I was referring to was also not Keystone's definition of an
>>>endpoint.
>>> It's almost as if the term has many uses and was not invented for
>>>Keystone.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChStatEndpoints.html
>>>
>>> Did a similar discussion occur when Heat wanted to use the word
>>>'template'
>>> since this was clearly already in use by Horizon?
>>>
>>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:24 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/06/2014 02:12 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that, pointing to the Nova parity work seems a bit like a red
>>>>> herring. This new API is being developed orthogonally to the existing
>>>>> API endpoints
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You see how you used the term endpoints there? :P
>>>>
>>>> -jay
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev