[tc] Project repository namespaces

Sean Mooney smooney at redhat.com
Tue Mar 19 14:19:28 UTC 2019

On Tue, 2019-03-19 at 13:59 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2019-03-19 14:52:41 +0100 (+0100), Thierry Carrez wrote:
> > Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >     Of those 3 options, (2) is a community-oriented view (openstack or not
> > >     openstack), (3) is a developer-oriented view (organized by project
> > >     teams, which really only matter to developers), and (4) is a
> > >     user-oriented view (organized by what users are looking for).
> > > 
> > > This makes sense in general, but we're talking about git repositories
> > > and only git repositories.
> > > 
> > > Who looks for git repositories most often, users or developers? :)
> > 
> > Developers, of course. But developers can easily find their way to the
> > repository that they want to see. While users or first-time developers might
> > get confused by a hierarchy defined after how work is organized rather than
> > the result of that work.
> > 
> > But I get your point... we should definitely not make the hierarchy "weird"
> > for developers and contributors. If (4) really is too alien, maybe (2) is
> > the right trade-off.
> To reiterate, the namespaces and repository names in Gerrit/Gitea do
> not have to 1:1 match their counterparts on external services. We
> can totally have team-oriented namespaces in OpenDev but functional
> namespacing in places like GH and BB. But perhaps that too would be
> confusing?
am i would be somewhat concerned that if we wanted to evolve the functionl groupins
over time. e.g. move a service into our out of core  or operations vs lifecyclemenate 
that i might require renaming/moving repos as we evovle our "marchitecture" to reflect
the evolving opnestack vision captured in https://openstack.org/openstack-map.

as such my personal preferences as a dev would be to follow the governce repo
team structures whic was option 3 and only include offial project in for example
the nova/* namespace although we could consivibly use the team name e.g. compute/nova instead
to give a blance between user and dev expections. e.g. org use user faceing team name "compute" and the porject
use the devfocused project name "nova"

i do understand the desire to have a mappiing back to https://openstack.org/openstack-map but im not sure
the source repose are the correct way to do that.

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list