Hi!
As promised in the Tags meeting, I bring the discussion on naming to the
list.
The OpenStack project structure reform that the Technical Committee
drove over the past year introduced two concepts. The first one is the
"big tent", the idea that we should consider as "OpenStack projects" all
th
On 06/19/2015 05:22 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that you find an better name to
describe this operational data about projects, because calling them
"tags" or "labels" will be confusing in this two-step picture. My
personal suggestion would be ops-data
+1
-jay
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 c
On 06/29/15 08:05, 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
asp
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 conf
Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> Specifically after the impression I got from the last meeting was that
> the foundation envisioned these to be one and the same and not
> differentiate between ops-tags and tags.
Yes, we originally hoped the ops workgroup would be OK with reusing the
simple tag frame
Thierry,
People will starting calling "tc this" and "uc that" only if we present two
sets of data. I think the right question to ask is why not present one
unified set, which was my original understanding when I read your proposal
last year.
Subbu
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:14 AM, Thierry Carrez
Maish Saidel-Keesing wrote:
> 14:26:52 that was my original understanding, we would have a tags
> program and have different groups in the community contribute information
> based on their expertise/experience
> 14:27:06 but it's sounding more and more like two separate programs,
> which is di
Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> People will starting calling "tc this" and "uc that" only if we present
> two sets of data. I think the right question to ask is why not present
> one unified set, which was my original understanding when I read your
> proposal last year.
Subbu,
It was indeed our propos
Thierry,
Thanks for clarifying in your replies to me and Maish:
1. Who is providing is not the issue, but the what is being provided is.
2. Irrespective of who is providing, there are two types of data - binary and
structured.
Given this, I don’t think there is any reason not to converge into
Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> Thierry,
>
> Thanks for clarifying in your replies to me and Maish:
>
> 1. Who is providing is not the issue, but the what is being provided is.
> 2. Irrespective of who is providing, there are two types of data - binary and
> structured.
>
> Given this, I don’t think
11 matches
Mail list logo
