Open Stack

Really?  I don't want to escalate, but I  think that I'm entitled:


- to have an opinion on this, regardless of how much of the history I've read


- to express that opinion in response to an explicit request for "any feedback", particularly when no one else had responded to that call for nearly 24 hours.


FWIW, it's also fine with me that there is apparently a strong consensus _for_ this change, and I'm happy to reflect and ponder that my intuition might be wrong.  I'd rather have stuck my neck out and contributed to a discussion, than be asked later "why did no one say anything?"


    Neil

________________________________
From: Armando M. <armamig at gmail.com>
Sent: 04 December 2015 21:01
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Rename tenant to project: discussion



On 4 December 2015 at 08:46, Neil Jerram <Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com<mailto:Neil.Jerram at metaswitch.com>> wrote:
I'm new to this discussion, but you did ask for any feedback, so ...

On 03/12/15 18:29, Smigiel, Dariusz wrote:
> Hey Neutrinos (thanks armax for this word :),
> Keystone is planning to deprecate V2 API (again :). This time in Mitaka [6], and probably forever. It will stay at least four releases, but we need to decide, how to conquer problem of renaming...
> And more important: consider if it's a problem for Neutron?
>
> I'm looking at blueprint [1] about renaming all occurrences of 'tenant' to 'project', and trying to find out all the details.
> First attempt to solve this problem was raised in November 2013 [4][5] but unfortunately, no one finished it. Although Keystone V3 API is already supported in Neutron client [2], there are still some unknowns about Neutron server side. Monty Taylor is trying to address necessary (if any) changes [3].
>
> Findings:
> I've focused on two projects: python-neutronclient and neutron.
> grep found 429 occurrences of 'tenant' in Client while Server has 3021 of it. Some of them are just documentation and docstrings, but there are a lot of places, where variables are tangled: defined in DB, used in server, accessed by client. Most of places are just internal usages. The only thing where I've found 'public' information about tenants is 'help' command in neutron client.
>
> Suggested plan for conquer:
> 1. First step would be to deal with neutronclient. It's much smaller amount of code to look through, update all places and be successful :)
> 2. Bigger challenge will be to change server side code. I'd suggest to start with renaming db columns. It affects a lot of places, so when finished should significantly lower number of remained "tenants".
> 3. Deal with all other places.
>
> Pros:
> - variable names unification in OpenStack code base. Someone needs to start this job.
> - one way to describe the same thing, instead of: tenant/account/project. Helpful, especially for newcomers.
> - alignment with Keystone V3 API
>
> Cons:
> - A. Lot. Of. Work.
> - dealing with DB migrations
> - about 2-4 weeks of work for every part of code. Additional, a lot of patchsets to be reviewed.
>
> What do you think about this? About proposed way of dealing with all changes?
> Is this change necessary?

My intuition is that we should just not do this change.  The whole world
says 'tenant' for the 'tenant' concept, particularly in the context of
networking.  Changing to a different term is just silly.


If you don't know the whole story why are you making these remarks?

But I haven't looked into the history.  Perhaps there's some reason we
need to anyway.

    Neil


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151204/3491430a/attachment.html>