Open Stack

I agree with the majority so far that option 3 looks ideal but 2 looks more
realistic as far as what we can get done easily. Who would be on the hook
to do the actual work here? I'm happy to sign someone else up for work I
guess, but I'd like to know who it is so I can buy them a beverage to
alleviate my guilt. ;)

   --Adam

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019, 06:27 Nate Johnston <nate.johnston at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 04:49:47PM -0400, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
>
> > 2) Move unofficial projects to "stackforge" or some other namespace,
> which
> > is
> >    only a small amount of work to list the repositories, but probably a
> > large
> >    amount of bikeshedding^Wdiscussion to come up with a name.
> >
> > 3) Do (2), but also namespace the OpenStack projects in a more
> fine-grained
> >    manner, by project team. For example: nova/nova, ironic/bifrost, etc.
> >    This is a larger chunk of work, but looks a bit nicer. Also makes it
> > easier
> >    to move a project out of OpenStack later, as we don't have to move
> >    namespaces. This has an open question of whether we use one large
> > namespace
> >    for unofficial projects, or give them each their own. It also has a
> > downside
> >    of making more effort to move a repository between project teams,
> though
> >    I think that's fairly rare.
>
> From the perspective of one who works in the Neutron Stadium, it
> would be really convenient to have those projects under a 'neutron'
> space so that it was obviously clear to everyone what is in or out of
> the Stadium - even for projects that don't necessarily look
> neutron-related based on the name, like os-ken or ovsdbapp.
>
> Nate
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20190319/c04fb52d/attachment.html>