Open Stack

On 11/17/2015 07:31 AM, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>     On 10 November 2015 at 15:08, Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn at redhat.com
>     <mailto:tzumainn at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         At the last IRC meeting it was agreed that the new TripleO
>         REST API
>         should forgo the Tuskar name, and simply be called... the TripleO
>         API.  There's one more point of discussion: where should the API
>         live?  There are two possibilities:
>
>         a) Put it in tripleo-common, where the business logic lives. 
>         If we
>         do this, it would make sense to rename tripleo-common to simply
>         tripleo.
>
>
>     +1 - I think this makes most sense if we are not going to support
>     the tripleo repo as a library.
>
>
> Okay, this seems to be the consensus, which is great.
>
> The leftover question is how to package the renamed repo. 'tripleo' is 
> already intuitively in use by tripleo-incubator.
> In IRC, bnemec and trown suggested splitting the renamed repo into two 
> packages - 'python-tripleo' and 'tripleo-api',
> which seems sensible to me.
>
> What do others think?
>
>

I have started the process of renaming the repo with these patches:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/247834/
https://review.gerrithub.io/#/c/252864/

Jan made an interesting suggestion that it may be easier to create a new 
repo named tripleo and move the tripleo-common code there. With 
renaming, I'm already see some complications with the tripleo-common 
package builds failing in the CI until updated spec is merged.

What do folks think about this? I am unsure which is more complicated, 
creating a new repo and all the setup that goes with it. Or renaming the 
existing repo and fixing CI issues along the way.

- Richard

>
>         b) Put it in its own repo, tripleo-api
>
>
>         The first option made a lot of sense to people on IRC, as the
>         proposed
>         API is a very thin layer that's bound closely to the code in
>         tripleo-
>         common.  The major objection is that renaming is not trivial;
>         however
>         it was mentioned that renaming might not be *too* bad... as
>         long as
>         it's done sooner rather than later.
>
>         What do people think?
>
>
>         Thanks,
>         Tzu-Mainn Chen
>
>         __________________________________________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     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
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151123/fa085f90/attachment.html>