Open Stack

On 03/28/2019 08:41 PM, Mohammed Naser wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:51 AM Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I'm quite in favor of enabling projects with large number of deliverables to get
> their own space.
> 
> As I've worked with Puppet OpenStack and OpenStack Ansible, splitting our work
> into many different roles really makes it hard and duplicates a lot of
> information
> 
> i.e. all our repos are openstack/openstack-ansible-os_nova like, it
> would be nice
> for them to be: openstack-ansible/ansible-role-os_nova .. we would then we able
> to follow the 'offiical' Ansible naming convention for role repo name
> for example.

What about putting all deployment things into an openstack-deployment/ 
organization?

You could still have the name of the repo be "ansible-role-os_nova" (or 
ansible-role-compute?), and we'd be able to put all the deployment stuff 
in a single location.

Best,
-jay