> On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 04/23/2015 01:19 PM, Armando M. wrote: >> >> >> On 23 April 2015 at 09:58, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com >> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> On 04/23/2015 12:14 PM, Armando M. wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 23 April 2015 at 07:32, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com >>> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com> >>> <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com <mailto:rbry...@redhat.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> On 04/22/2015 10:33 PM, Armando M. wrote: >>>> >>>> Would it make sense to capture these projects as simply >>>> 'affiliated', ie. with a loose relationship to Neutron, >>> because >>>> they use/integrate with Neutron in some form or >> another (e.g. >>>> having 3rd-party, extending-api, >> integrating-via-plugin-model, >>>> etc)? Then we could simply consider extending the >>> projects.yaml >>>> to capture this new concept (for Neutron or any >> other project) >>>> once we defined its ontology. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>>> >>>> >>>> That seems interesting, but given the communities stated >> goals >>>> around Big Tent, it seems to me like affiliation or not, >> adding >>>> these under the Neutron tent, inside the larger >> OpenStack Bigger >>>> Tent, would be a good thing. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kyle >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for clearing some of the questions I raised. I should >>> stress the >>>> fact that I welcome the idea of finding a more sensible home >> for these >>>> projects in light of the big tent developments, but it seems >> like >>> we're >>>> still pouring down the foundations. I'd rather get us to a >> point where >>>> the landscape is clear, and the dust settled. That would help us >>> make a >>>> more informed decision compared to the one we can make right >> now. >>> >>> Can you be a bit more specific about what's not clear and >> would help >>> make you feel more informed? >>> >>> >>> I am not clear on how we make a decision, as to which project >> belongs or >>> doesn't to the Neutron 'umbrella', 'tent', 'stadium' or however we end >>> up calling it :) >> >> OK, that's fine. Figuring that out is the next step if folks agree with >> Neutron as the home for networking-foo repos. I'm happy to write up a >> strawman proposal for inclusion criteria and a set of expectations >> around responsibilities and communication. >> >> >> What about the other Neutron related ones that didn't strictly follow >> the networking- prefix in the name, would the naming convention be one >> of the criteria? I look forward to your proposal. > > Good question. I think consistency is good, especially when there are > so many of them. It helps make it clear that they're all following some > sort of pattern. Luckily we do have a way to get repos renamed if needed.
There is one existing project, stackforge/octavia, which is quite active and has used its codename extensively. Suggested naming I’d be ok with, but enforced naming seems… confining. Thanks, doug > > -- > Russell Bryant > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev