Open Stack

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:27 AM, James E. Blair <jeblair at openstack.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think
> about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should
> stick with codenames for the spec repos.  The codenames are actually
> more discoverable for potential contributors and collaborators.  If
> you're looking for the place to submit a spec for swift-bench, you're
> much more likely to find the 'swift-specs' repo than 'object-specs'.
> And while some of our older programs have nice catchy names, the newer
> ones can be a mouthful.  Here's a list of likely names based on the
> program name:
>
> Program Names
> -------------
> compute-specs
> object-specs
> image-specs
> identity-specs
> dashboard-specs
> networking-specs
> volume-specs
> telemetry-specs
> orchestration-specs
> database-specs
> baremetal-specs
> common-libraries-specs
> infra-specs
> docs-specs
> qa-specs
> deployment-specs
> devstack-specs
> release-management-specs
> queue-specs
> data-processing-specs
> key-management-specs
>
> Note that "database-specs" is potentially quite confusing.
>
> And here's a list based on the program's codename:
>
> Codenames
> ---------
> nova-specs
> swift-specs
> glance-specs
> keystone-specs
> horizon-specs
> neutron-specs
> cinder-specs
> ceilometer-specs
> heat-specs
> trove-specs
> ironic-specs
> oslo-specs
> infra-specs
> docs-specs
> qa-specs
> tripleo-specs
> devstack-specs
> release-management-specs
> marconi-specs
> sahara-specs
> barbican-specs
>
> When I look at the two of those, I have to admit that it's the second
> one I find more intuitive and I'm pretty sure I'll end up calling it
> 'sahara-specs' in common usage no matter the name.
>
> -Jim
>
+1 from me. It's more obvious to use program names here.

> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev