Stefano Maffulli wrote: > On 06/02/2015 07:54 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: >> Please, no. We should not have ops tags that are different than other >> tags for no good reason. > > Let me put it another way: > > I think there is a good reason for Operators to look for information > about a project that is more descriptive than the current definition of > project tags. > > Whether the tags can be expanded or if a different approach is needed to > display such information I don't know. I would expect operators to be > interested to know the details of what 'is-packaged' mean: are packages > available in my favorite distro? how often are they built? If that > information is not in the tag itself, then it should be visible > somewhere else.
It's visible in the tag description. Each tag is backed by a precise definition that explains what the tag means. Tags as designed are labels, not metrics. We define what "well-packaged" means, and then apply that label to projects that fit the bill. If we mix the messaging by making tags be both labels and metrics, then it will be extra-hard to make a project navigation website to expose both. That said, the Ops tags WG is pretty much on the same line -- the discussion we had in Vancouver was that we should define subjectively what "well-packaged" means, and than apply it objectively. Same for the other ops tags. So I think we are actually on the same line... -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
