Open Stack

On 16:43 Dec 01, Adam Spiers wrote:
> 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.

+1 openstack- prefix is redundant.

-- 
Mike Perez (thingee)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/attachments/20171202/bb007213/attachment.sig>