Open Stack

On 24 November 2015 at 07:45, Richard Su <rwsu at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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>
> 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.
>

I'm not sure which is easier or better, but if we do create a new repo we
need to make sure we carry over the git history.


>
> - 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://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:unsubscribehttp://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/20151124/3f06368f/attachment.html>