On 11/27/2013 10:15 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
On Nov 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/2013 02:03 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
Jay,
On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/27/2013 06:23 AM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) wrote:
I
Personally Application gets my vote as the conceptual top level
unit, with the best combination of some meaning and not too much
ambiguity. At least so far. As Tom notes there is some ambiguity ...
not sure we can avoid that altogether but worth some brainstorming.
Project is what I had
: [openstack-dev] [Solum] Definition feedback
Personally Application gets my vote as the conceptual top level
unit, with the best combination of some meaning and not too much ambiguity. At
least so far. As Tom notes there is some ambiguity ...
not sure we can avoid that altogether but worth some
-Original Message-
From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 0:28
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum] Definition feedback
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers
- Original Message -
Personally Application gets my vote as the conceptual top level
unit, with the best combination of some meaning and not too much
ambiguity. At least so far. As Tom notes there is some ambiguity ...
not sure we can avoid that altogether but worth some
] [Solum] Definition feedback
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers)
tdeck...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Few comments on the Definitions blueprint [1]:
1. I'd propose to alter the term 'Application' to either 'Application
Package'
or 'Package'. Application isn't
On 11/27/2013 06:23 AM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) wrote:
I understand the an Assembly can be a larger group of components.
However, those together exist to provide a capability which we want
to capture in some catalog so the capability becomes discoverable.
I'm not sure how the 'listing' mechanism
Jay,
On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/27/2013 06:23 AM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) wrote:
I understand the an Assembly can be a larger group of components.
However, those together exist to provide a capability which we want
to capture in some catalog so
On 11/27/2013 02:03 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
Jay,
On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/2013 06:23 AM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) wrote:
I understand the an Assembly can be a larger group of
components. However, those together exist to provide a capability
On Nov 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/2013 02:03 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
Jay,
On Nov 27, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/27/2013 06:23 AM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) wrote:
I understand the an Assembly can be a larger group of
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) tdeck...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Few comments on the Definitions blueprint [1]:
1. I'd propose to alter the term 'Application' to either 'Application
Package' or 'Package'. Application isn't very descriptive and can be
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) tdeck...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Few comments on the Definitions blueprint [1]:
1. I'd propose to alter the term 'Application' to either
On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers (tdeckers) tdeck...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hi All,
Few comments on the Definitions
On Nov 26, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Clayton Coleman ccole...@redhat.com wrote:
On Nov 26, 2013, at 6:30 PM, Adrian Otto adrian.o...@rackspace.com wrote:
Tom,
On Nov 26, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Tom Deckers
14 matches
Mail list logo
