Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona wrote:
> Given that tags have a clear binary value, and that some people have
> expressed the convenience of having some more information available,
> maybe the tags could be just the result of applying certain conditions
> to a more complex description of a metric or set of metrics.
Right, and that's was I was hinting at in another thread where I said we
could totally define tags on top of Ops-provided more complex data.
I think the key thing to recognize here is that "tags" mean a precise
thing (i.e. just a label), and that the Ops Tag WG is actually
interested in providing a richer data set around specific
operator-impacting areas.
One option is to abandon the idea and converge to using the same
concept. Another option is to rename that rich data ("project
operational metadata" ?) to avoid the confusion of calling with same
name what is essentially two different things. That will open the door
to defining "tags" on top of it.
And if the ops WG is only interested in publishing the complex metadata,
I guess a workgroup around the TC could take up the work of turning that
data into a set of tags.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
