Open Stack

On 02/04/2016 09:32 AM, michael mccune wrote:
> On 02/04/2016 08:33 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Hayes, Graham wrote:
>>> On 04/02/2016 13:24, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>>>> Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-02-04 12:54:56 +0000:
>>>>> On 04/02/2016 11:40, Sean Dague wrote:
>>>>>> 2) Have a registry of "common" names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Upside, we can safely use common names everywhere and not fear
>>>>>> collision down the road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Downside, yet another contention point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A registry would clearly be under TC administration, though all the
>>>>>> heavy lifting might be handed over to the API working group. I still
>>>>>> imagine collision around some areas might be contentious.
>>>>>
>>>>> ++ to a central registry. It could easily be added to the
>>>>> projects.yaml
>>>>> file, and is a single source of truth.
>>>>
>>>> Although I realized that the projects.yaml file only includes official
>>>> projects right now, which would mean new projects wouldn't have a place
>>>> to register terms. Maybe that's a feature?
>>>
>>> That is a good point - should we be registering terms for non tent
>>> projects? Or do projects get terms when they get accepted into the tent?
>>
>> I don't see why we would register terms for non-official projects. I
>> don't see under what authority we would do that, or where it would end.
>> So yes, that's a feature.
>>
>
> i have a question about this, as new, non-official, projects start to
> spin up there will be questions about the naming conventions they will
> use within the project as to headers and the like. given that the
> current guidance trend in the api-wg is towards using "service type" in
> these cases, how would these projects proceed?
>
> (i'm not suggesting these projects should be registered, just curious)

This isn't a perfect solution, but maybe instead of projects.yml there 
could be a `registry.yml` project that would (of course) have all the 
project.yml "in-tent" projects, but also merge in external project 
requests for namespaces?

Say there's an LDAP aaS project, it could ask to reserve "directory" or 
whatever and have a reasonable hope that when they're tented they'll be 
able to use it. This would help avoid having multiple projects expecting 
to use the same name, while also not meaning we force anyone to use or 
not use some name.

Effectively, it's a gerrit-backed version of "dibs".

>> I think solution 2 is the best. To avoid too much contention, that can
>> easily be delegated to the API WG, and escalated to the TC for
>> resolution only in case of conflict between projects (or between a
>> project and the API WG).
>>
>
> i'm +1 for solution 2 as well. as to the api-wg participation in the
> name registration side of things , i don't have an objection but i am
> very curious to hear Everett's and Chris' opinions.
>
> regards,
> mike
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc.