On Jul 10, 2015, at 4:19 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
I think growing up is accepting the pain that comes with picking a
good name, rather than sidestepping the issue.
I’ve heard the phrase that there are only two hard problems in computer
science, and naming is one of
+1 from me as well.
2015년 7월 10일 (금) 18:27, Neil Jerram neil.jer...@metaswitch.com님이 작성:
On 10/07/15 10:19, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Part of the confusion here is that we are not naming releases. We are
naming release *cycles*. We are giving a name to a period of time,
basically. In that
+1 for this.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Adam Lawson wrote:
The alternative of course is to just number the releases since names
ultimately don't mean anything but it seems there are problems with that
level of simplicity. I personally
+1 for this
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:20 PM Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Adam Lawson wrote:
The alternative of course is to just number the releases since names
ultimately don't mean anything but it seems there are problems with that
level of simplicity. I personally prefer
Thierry,
Well put, and interesting. I didn't know about the other cultural concerns
around numbers.
Most importantly, I think using names for releases is better than numbers,
creating a more personal connection to each release. Would hate to see that
end.
Unfortunately there isn't much we can
Adam Lawson wrote:
The alternative of course is to just number the releases since names
ultimately don't mean anything but it seems there are problems with that
level of simplicity. I personally prefer Tristan's suggestion to keep it
as simple as possible. In a few years we'll run out of
On 10/07/15 10:19, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Part of the confusion here is that we are not naming releases. We are
naming release *cycles*. We are giving a name to a period of time,
basically. In that period of time, various version numbers for various
components will be released. Saying Glance
Yes I'm talking about vetting by legal since the community already vets via
the usual process. Legal has stricter guidelines so we could start future
vetting with legal to remove the options we can't use even if we wanted to.
That's where the inefficiency lies imho. The issue with this particular
On 2015-07-09 18:04:49 -0700 (-0700), Adam Lawson wrote:
Yes I'm talking about vetting by legal since the community already
vets via the usual process. Legal has stricter guidelines so we
could start future vetting with legal to remove the options we
can't use even if we wanted to. That's
It seems we have a golden opportunity here to improve efficiency by vetting
names before we vote on them. Seems that voting for a bunch of names then
eliminating all of the top votes because they won't work doesn't strike me
as very efficient (i.e. why vote on names that MIGHT be valid).
The
On 07/09/2015 07:16 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
It seems we have a golden opportunity here to improve efficiency by vetting
names before we vote on them.
The vetting from the crowd was intended to happen on the wikipage. I'm
not sure how much vetting did take place but obviously not enough to
give
11 matches
Mail list logo
