Hi, With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should stick with codenames for the spec repos. The codenames are actually more discoverable for potential contributors and collaborators. If you're looking for the place to submit a spec for swift-bench, you're much more likely to find the 'swift-specs' repo than 'object-specs'. And while some of our older programs have nice catchy names, the newer ones can be a mouthful. Here's a list of likely names based on the program name:
Program Names ------------- compute-specs object-specs image-specs identity-specs dashboard-specs networking-specs volume-specs telemetry-specs orchestration-specs database-specs baremetal-specs common-libraries-specs infra-specs docs-specs qa-specs deployment-specs devstack-specs release-management-specs queue-specs data-processing-specs key-management-specs Note that "database-specs" is potentially quite confusing. And here's a list based on the program's codename: Codenames --------- nova-specs swift-specs glance-specs keystone-specs horizon-specs neutron-specs cinder-specs ceilometer-specs heat-specs trove-specs ironic-specs oslo-specs infra-specs docs-specs qa-specs tripleo-specs devstack-specs release-management-specs marconi-specs sahara-specs barbican-specs When I look at the two of those, I have to admit that it's the second one I find more intuitive and I'm pretty sure I'll end up calling it 'sahara-specs' in common usage no matter the name. -Jim _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev