Subbu Allamaraju wrote: > Pardon me for being blunt, but I’m still confused why cycles are being spent > on semantic wrangling. As you rightly point out, the term is subjective, and > that’s the point. > > Is there a fear a single set of tags that include both dev and operational > aspects confuse consumers of OpenStack? Please clarify.
No, the fear is that if we provide two types of data (a binary and a dictionary) and call both of them "tags", then people will start calling them "TC tags" (the binary things) and "Ops tags" (the dictionary things), and that confusion will follow. Confusion will be even deeper once the TC starts to define "TC tags" based on data from "Ops tags". At that point "tag" won't mean anything anymore. Let me reverse the question: Pardon me for being blunt, but I'm still confused why you insist on calling "tags" data that cannot be represented as a label and therefore doesn't meet the general usage of the "tag" word in our industry ? Why not use another word (data, information, dictionary, documentation...) ? I totally get that you want to define operational information under your own terms and don't want to limit yourself to the framework the TC proposed. I just don't get why you want to reuse the exact same word for it. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
