Open Stack

+1 
It is easier to match spec with codenames

On 5/23/14, 3:27 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
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev