On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@noironetworks.com>wrote:
> 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 discoverable for potential contributors and collaborators. If > > you're looking for the place to submit a spec for swift-bench, you're > > much more likely to find the 'swift-specs' repo than 'object-specs'. > > And while some of our older programs have nice catchy names, the newer > > ones can be a mouthful. Here's a list of likely names based on the > > program name: > > > > Program Names > > ------------- > > compute-specs > > object-specs > > image-specs > > identity-specs > > dashboard-specs > > networking-specs > > volume-specs > > telemetry-specs > > orchestration-specs > > database-specs > > baremetal-specs > > common-libraries-specs > > infra-specs > > docs-specs > > qa-specs > > deployment-specs > > devstack-specs > > release-management-specs > > queue-specs > > data-processing-specs > > key-management-specs > > > > Note that "database-specs" is potentially quite confusing. > > > > And here's a list based on the program's codename: > > > > Codenames > > --------- > > nova-specs > > swift-specs > > glance-specs > > keystone-specs > > horizon-specs > > neutron-specs > > cinder-specs > > ceilometer-specs > > heat-specs > > trove-specs > > ironic-specs > > oslo-specs > > infra-specs > > docs-specs > > qa-specs > > tripleo-specs > > devstack-specs > > release-management-specs > > marconi-specs > > sahara-specs > > barbican-specs > +1 for project names (Believe it or not, I think it's the correct answer here, see my line of reasoning from this week's project meeting log http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/project/2014/project.2014-05-20-21.03.log.html ) > > > > 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. > > > > -Jim > > > +1 from me. It's more obvious to use program names here. > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
