+1 to code names.
Technically, if a program contains multiple projects, it would be more
correct to use the program name, but at this point I think it is pretty
ingrained in our culture (including IRC, mailing list and summits) to
refer to things by their code/project names, so IMO using those
jebl...@openstack.org (James E. Blair) writes:
about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should
stick with codenames for the spec repos. The codenames are actually
I hereby +1 this, except old timers that i don't think many people knows
the OpenStack components by their
Hi,
With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think
about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should
stick with codenames for the spec repos. The codenames are actually
more discoverable for potential contributors and collaborators. If
you're looking for
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 03:27:11AM -0700, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think
about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should
stick with codenames for the spec repos. The codenames are actually
more discoverable
James E. Blair wrote:
[...]
When I look at the two of those, I have to admit that it's the second
one I find more intuitive and I'm pretty sure I'll end up calling it
'sahara-specs' in common usage no matter the name.
+1
Also the program codename is actually defined in programs.yaml:
+1 for using program codename.
So, we'll need to rename some existing program-named spec repos.
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
James E. Blair wrote:
[...]
When I look at the two of those, I have to admit that it's the second
one I find more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
+1, I also don't see any significant value in using generic names
instead of project names, while the drawbacks are obvious.
/Ihar
On 23/05/14 14:30, Sergey Lukjanov wrote:
+1 for using program codename.
So, we'll need to rename some existing
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:27 AM, James E. Blair jebl...@openstack.org wrote:
Hi,
With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think
about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should
stick with codenames for the spec repos. The codenames are actually
more
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@noironetworks.comwrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:27 AM, James E. Blair jebl...@openstack.org
wrote:
Hi,
With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think
about this, the more I think that the right answer is that
+1
It is easier to match spec with codenames
On 5/23/14, 3:27 AM, James E. Blair jebl...@openstack.org wrote:
Hi,
With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I think
about this, the more I think that the right answer is that we should
stick with codenames for the spec repos.
+1 to code names. I didn't feel strongly enough about it to object to
the name change for oslo-specs, but we do refer to the program as oslo
pretty much _everywhere_ else.
-Ben
On 05/23/2014 05:27 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
Hi,
With apologies to the specs repos we just created, the more I
11 matches
Mail list logo