Hi Edgar, Actually, I think that other reviewers saw that name clash, and still thought it was ok to use the same terminology in such a different context. BP reviews are a community effort right? So of course someones' idea may be different from yours.
Regards, Ivar. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com> wrote: > Basically, I am admitting that I did not catch in my review the part of > the endpoint term that Jay was pointing out. > > Edgar > > On 8/6/14, 11:32 AM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Not sure what you are talking about? You claim now that you had > >suggestion which was not considered, yet you +2'ed a patch, by stating > >that "All looks good to me!". > > > >On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com> > >wrote: > >> That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a > >>smartest > >> reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t. > >> > >> Edgar > >> > >> On 8/6/14, 10:55 AM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>>Edgar, you seemed to have +2'ed this patch on July 2nd [1]: > >>> > >>>" > >>>Edgar Magana > >>>Jul 2 8:42 AM > >>> > >>>Patch Set 13: Code-Review+2 > >>> > >>>All looks good to me! I am not approving yet because Nachi was also > >>>reviewing this code and I would like to see his opinion as well. > >>>" > >>> > >>>That would suggest that you were happy with what was in it. I don't > >>>see anything in the review comments that suggests otherwise. > >>> > >>>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95900/ > >>> > >>>On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com > > > >>>wrote: > >>>> This is the consequence of a proposal that is not following the > >>>>standardized > >>>> terminology (IETF - RFC) for any Policy-based System: > >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3198 > >>>> > >>>> Well, I did bring this point during the Hong Kong Summit but as you > >>>>can see > >>>> my comments were totally ignored: > >>>> > >>>> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaB > >>>>Ir > >>>>upCD9E/edit > >>>> > >>>> I clearly saw this kind of issues coming. Let me quote myself what I > >>>> suggested: "For instance: "endpoints" should be "enforcement point" > >>>> > >>>> I do not understand why GBP did not include this suggestionŠ > >>>> > >>>> Edgar > >>>> > >>>> From: Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com> > >>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > >>>>questions)" > >>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>>> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM > >>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > >>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > >>>> > >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way > >>>> forward > >>>> > >>>> What I was referring to was also not Keystone's definition of an > >>>>endpoint. > >>>> It's almost as if the term has many uses and was not invented for > >>>>Keystone. > >>>> :-) > >>>> > >>>> http://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChStatEndpoints.html > >>>> > >>>> Did a similar discussion occur when Heat wanted to use the word > >>>>'template' > >>>> since this was clearly already in use by Horizon? > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:24 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 08/06/2014 02:12 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given that, pointing to the Nova parity work seems a bit like a red > >>>>>> herring. This new API is being developed orthogonally to the > >>>>>>existing > >>>>>> API endpoints > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> You see how you used the term endpoints there? :P > >>>>> > >>>>> -jay > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
