Open Stack

> On Apr 23, 2015, at 1:42 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04/23/2015 03:23 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley
>> <dougwig at parksidesoftware.com <mailto:dougwig at parksidesoftware.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>>    <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>>    <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>
>>>> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com
>>    <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com
>>    <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>>
>>>>> <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>
>>    <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com <mailto:rbryant at redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply
>>>>>>       'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron,
>>>>>   because
>>>>>>       they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or
>>>>   another (e.g.
>>>>>>       having 3rd-party, extending-api,
>>>>   integrating-via-plugin-model,
>>>>>>       etc)? Then we could simply consider extending the
>>>>>   projects.yaml
>>>>>>       to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any
>>>>   other project)
>>>>>>       once we defined its ontology.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   That seems interesting, but given the communities stated
>>>>   goals
>>>>>>   around Big Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not,
>>>>   adding
>>>>>>   these under the Neutron tent, inside the larger
>>>>   OpenStack Bigger
>>>>>>   Tent, would be a good thing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Thanks,
>>>>>>   Kyle
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should
>>>>>   stress the
>>>>>> fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home
>>>>   for these
>>>>>> projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems
>>>>   like
>>>>>   we're
>>>>>> still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a
>>>>   point where
>>>>>> the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us
>>>>>   make a
>>>>>> more informed decision compared to the one we can make right
>>>>   now.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and
>>>>   would help
>>>>>   make you feel more informed?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am not clear on how we make a decision, as to which project
>>>>   belongs or
>>>>> doesn't to the Neutron 'umbrella', 'tent', 'stadium' or however
>>    we end
>>>>> up calling it :)
>>>> 
>>>>   OK, that's fine.  Figuring that out is the next step if folks
>>    agree with
>>>>   Neutron as the home for networking-foo repos.  I'm happy to
>>    write up a
>>>>   strawman proposal for inclusion criteria and a set of expectations
>>>>   around responsibilities and communication.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> What about the other Neutron related ones that didn't strictly follow
>>>> the networking- prefix in the name, would the naming convention
>>    be one
>>>> of the criteria? I look forward to your proposal.
>>> 
>>> Good question.  I think consistency is good, especially when there are
>>> so many of them.  It helps make it clear that they're all
>>    following some
>>> sort of pattern.  Luckily we do have a way to get repos renamed if
>>    needed.
>> 
>>    There is one existing project, stackforge/octavia, which is quite
>>    active and has used its codename extensively. Suggested naming I’d
>>    be ok with, but enforced naming seems… confining.
> 
> To be honest, I really don't care about the names.  All it takes is some
> pretty easy docs to help people figure out what things are and where
> they live.  Making it a recommendation is fine with me.
> 
>> 
>> If we've reached the point where we're arguing about naming, dos this
>> mean we've built consensus on the "yes, it makes sense for these to live
>> under Neutron" argument?
> 
> Ha.  I figured I'd give it at least another day before stirring up more
> debate with a proposal around criteria / responsibilities / expectations.

Quick, someone invoke Godwin’s law, and then let’s ship this thing.

doug


> 
> -- 
> Russell Bryant
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev