On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Doug Wiegley
<doug...@parksidesoftware.com<mailto:doug...@parksidesoftware.com>> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Russell Bryant<rbry...@redhat.com
<mailto: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>
>> <mailto: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>>
>>> <mailto: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.
