Open Stack

Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
>On 2017-11-29 09:23:42 +0000 (+0000), Adam Spiers wrote:
>[...]
>> that could be solved by changing the approach to require the repo
>> to exist, even if it's empty and unused.
>[...]
>> Currently the wiki is probably good enough, but it certainly
>> wouldn't do any harm to have a Git repo, and it's not even
>> unlikely that we will need one in the future.
>[...]
>
>This has basically been the conclusion in each past discussion where
>the topic has arisen. So, with that out of the way, do you have any
>idea what you would want the (for now empty/unused) repository
>called? I'm happy to submit the change to create that and the
>accompanying SB project for you.

That's very kind, thanks!  I guess either "openstack-self-healing" or
"openstack-self-healing-sig" should be fine, unless anyone else has
any ideas?  In case it's a relevant data point, I was planning to
create an #openstack-self-healing IRC channel, so maybe consistency
between the names makes sense.

Of course, if the "openstack-" prefix is redundant then we
can drop that; would this repository be going under the "openstack/"
namespace anyway?  I'm assuming my previous suggestion of creating a new
"openstack-sig/" namespace probably doesn't make sense, for good
reasons I am not yet aware of.

>Also, while it's nontrivial to rename these, it's something we do
>semi-regularly and have an established process to handle; so if the
>group does decide to change its Gerrit repo/SB project name at a
>later date it's always possible (just takes a bit of time to make
>that happen due to scheduling the maintenance activity around it).

Yep, gotcha.  Renaming seems pretty unlikely, but if it was needed, I
seriously doubt there would ever be any urgency around it :)

Thanks again!
Adam