Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Following a very interesting and vocal thread on GBP for last couple of >> days and the GBP meeting today, GBP sub-team proposes following name >> changes to the resource. >> >> >> policy-point for endpoint >> policy-group for endpointgroup (epg) >> >> Please reply if you feel that it is not ok with reason and suggestion. > > > Thanks Ronak and Sumit for sharing. I, too, wasn't able to attend the > meeting (was in other meetings yesterday and today). > > I'm very happy with the change from endpoint-group -> policy-group. > > policy-point is better than endpoint, for sure. The only other suggestion I > might have would be to use "policy-target" instead of "policy-point", since > the former clearly delineates what the object is used for (a target for a > policy). > > But... I won't raise a stink about this. Sorry for sparking long and > tangential discussions on GBP topics earlier this week. And thanks to the > folks who persevered and didn't take too much offense to my questioning. > > Best, > -jay > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
