On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Just a nit-pick... It's a shame we call it just placement. It could have been something like:foo: OpenStack placement Just like we have: nova: OpenStack compute No? Is it too late?
There was some discussion about this on one of the extraction-related etherpads  and the gist is that while it would be possible to change it, at this point "placement" is the name people use and are used to so there would have to be a very good reason to change it. All the docs and code talk about "placement", and python package names are already placement. It used to be the case that the service-oriented projects would have a project name different from their service-type because that was cool/fun  and it allowed for the possibility that there could be another project which provided the same service-type. That hasn't really come to pass and now that we are on the far side of the hype curve, doesn't really make much sense in terms of focusing energy. My feeling is that there is already a lot of identity associated with the term "placement" and changing it would be too disruptive. Also, I hope that it will operate as a constraint on feature creep. But if we were to change it, I vote for "katabatic", as a noun, even though it is an adjective.  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/placement-extract-stein-copy That was a copy of the original, which stopped working, but now that one has stopped working too. I'm going to attempt to reconstruct it today from copies that people.  For certain values of... -- Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/ freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev