Open Stack

Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 19/03/19 5:45 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> 4) Create several namespaces to match the OpenStack map[1] buckets:
>>
>> - openstack/ to hold first-level components in the central box
>> - openstack-operations/ to hold operational tooling from the rights box
> 
> The line between these two is extremely blurry. (e.g. Monasca includes 
> some of the same functionality as Aodh, but they're in different boxes.) 
> I don't think it would be helpful to have them in separate namespaces.

I agree that the distinction on the map is more product-marketing than 
technical, so it might be better not to have that bleed over repository 
names.

> [...]
>> - openstack-dev/ for all repositories that we end up creating in order 
>> to get things done but have otherwise no relationship with the end 
>> product
> 
> This exists already, of course. Is there anything that you think should 
> be in it but is not?

A lot of stuff! We create a lot of repositories in the process of 
producing "OpenStack software".

- Governance repositories like openstack/governance or election
- Team repositories like openstack/auto-scaling-sig or transparency-policy
- Meta repositories like openstack/releases or requirements
- Tools repositories like openstack/goal-tools or uc-recognition

In addition to that, several openstack-infra repositories are very 
OpenStack-specific and would likely not migrate to an opendev/ namespace:

- QA-oriented infra repos like openstack-infra/devstack-gate
- OpenStack-specific repos like openstack-infra/openstack-zuul-jobs

Finally, specs repositories could also be considered a development 
process by-product thing.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)