On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Neil Jerram <neil.jer...@metaswitch.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/16 11:40, Sean Dague wrote: > > What options do we have? > > > > 1) Use the names we already have: nova, glance, swift, etc. > > > > Upside, collision problem is solved. Downside, you need a secret decoder > > ring to figure out what project does what. > > This is my preference. Yes, it means that there is an education hurdle > for anyone new to OpenStack to overcome. But once that is done, there > is a concise and precise term that they and we can all use and understand. > Have a look at the browser User-Agent headers and let me know how that has worked out for them: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/48.0.2564.103 Safari/537.36 Two of those product/code names are lies for compatibility purposes. We (OpenStack) should not be promoting that sort of nonsense on our users just to save us a little bit of inconvenience in the development process. To add something positive to the discussion, we should remember how much of OpenStack consists of plugin-capable architecture, specifically so that out-of-tree components can be accommodated for whatever reason. The projects play the role of arbitrator of namespaces in the case of many back-end drivers. Having someone do this for OpenStack as a whole is a necessary part of having a community-wide namespace such as service types. dt -- Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
