I have some rough ideas about the name of gateway sub-project, for example, triangle, tridonut, tricookie etc, so that we can see that Tricircle and the new sub-project are like sibling in OpenStack. And they often will be listed closely in order.
Your thoughts? Best Regards Chaoyi Huang(joehuang) ________________________________ From: joehuang Sent: 02 September 2016 10:22 To: openstack-dev; [email protected] Subject: [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of networking and gateway sub-projects Hello, If we want to divide Tricircle into two sub-projects, your proposals for the name of sub-projects are welcome. Because the Tricircle is applying big-tent application, and the networking part will be remained in the Tricircle repository, and continue the big-tent application. So if we change the networking sub-project name from "Tricircle" to another one, we have to update a lots of places: from infra, to source code, to documentation, google docs, to wiki, etc, it's a huge work, and history background will also be lost, from this point of view, I proposal to remain current Tricircle repository name, but shrink the Tricircle scope to cross Neutron networking automation. And for gateway part, a new repository is required, new project name is more applicable, this is just my thoughts, would like to know your proposals. Best Regards Chaoyi Huang(joehuang) ________________________________________ From: joehuang Sent: 01 September 2016 9:02 To: Monty Taylor; openstack-dev Subject: RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in Tricircle big-tent application Hello, Monty, Thank you very much for your guide and encouragement, then let's move on this direction. Best regards Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) ________________________________________ From: Monty Taylor [[email protected]] Sent: 01 September 2016 0:37 To: joehuang; openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in Tricircle big-tent application On 08/31/2016 02:16 AM, joehuang wrote: > Hello, team, > > During last weekly meeting, we discussed how to address TCs concerns in > Tricircle big-tent application. After the weekly meeting, the proposal > was co-prepared by our > contributors: > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E > > The more doable way is to divide Tricircle into two independent and > decoupled projects, only one of the projects which deal with networking > automation will try to become an big-tent project, And Nova/Cinder > API-GW will be removed from the scope of big-tent project application, > and put them into another project: > > *TricircleNetworking:* Dedicated for cross Neutron networking automation > in multi-region OpenStack deployment, run without or with > TricircleGateway. Try to become big-tent project in the current > application of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/. Great idea. > *TricircleGateway:* Dedicated to provide API gateway for those who need > single Nova/Cinder API endpoint in multi-region OpenStack deployment, > run without or with TricircleNetworking. Live as non-big-tent, > non-offical-openstack project, just like Tricircle toady’s status. And > not pursue big-tent only if the consensus can be achieved in OpenStack > community, including Arch WG and TCs, then decide how to get it on board > in OpenStack. A new repository is needed to be applied for this project. > > > And consider to remove some overlapping implementation in Nova/Cinder > API-GW for global objects like flavor, volume type, we can configure one > region as master region, all global objects like flavor, volume type, > server group, etc will be managed in the master Nova/Cinder service. In > Nova API-GW/Cinder API-GW, all requests for these global objects will be > forwarded to the master Nova/Cinder, then to get rid of any API > overlapping-implementation. > > More information, you can refer to the proposal draft > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E, > > your thoughts are welcome, and let's have more discussion in this weekly > meeting. I think this is a great approach Joe.
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
