Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> writes: > James E. Blair wrote: >> I propose that in the future, we adopt the following strategy: >> >> * Any repo associated with an official OpenStack program is entitled to >> use the openstack org. >> * Programs may request an org for their program, with justification, >> but in general we should limit the number of orgs in use. > > That's one way of doing it, although I find it a bit confusing. > > If you follow markmc's vision of having some repo deliveries tagged as > being part of the OpenStack "product", you could argue that the > openstack/ org should be restricted to "openstack product" repos. That > would be a convenient way of finding them. > > Alternatively you could limit the openstack/ org to "projects" and > require that all "programs" set up their own org (like > openstack-infra/). That way the orgs would mirror our taxonomy. > > I don't have strong feelings either way, and I think we can decide on > that once the first "programs" are set up.
Honestly, my first thought was "hey, we can have the orgs mirror the taxonomy, and that will be easy". But then I thought that having lots of orgs mostly just makes it harder for people to find projects, and we should treat the openstack org as less of a name prefix (such as "Openstack Nova") and more of a collection of OpenStack related repositories. Since any program will, almost by definition, be working on code related to OpenStack, it makes sense to put it in there. So this way we will end up with a smaller and simpler set of orgs (which is less infrastructure overhead for us to manage), and it means that people looking for a repo don't have to understand our project taxonomy to know where to find it. Finally, this may mean fewer renames if our taxonomy changes in the future. -Jim Plus it's currently sort of a mess anyway. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
