On 11/25/2015 10:43 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
On 11/23/2015 06:50 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
On 11/17/2015 04:31 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10 November 2015 at 15:08, Tzu-Mainn Chen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi all,
At the last IRC meeting it was agreed that the new TripleO REST API
should forgo the Tuskar name, and simply be called... the TripleO
API. There's one more point of discussion: where should the API
live? There are two possibilities:
a) Put it in tripleo-common, where the business logic lives. If we
do this, it would make sense to rename tripleo-common to simply
tripleo.
+1 - I think this makes most sense if we are not going to support
the tripleo repo as a library.
Okay, this seems to be the consensus, which is great.
The leftover question is how to package the renamed repo. 'tripleo' is
already intuitively in use by tripleo-incubator.
In IRC, bnemec and trown suggested splitting the renamed repo into two
packages - 'python-tripleo' and 'tripleo-api',
which seems sensible to me.
-1, that would be inconsistent with what other projects are doing. I
guess tripleo-incubator will die soon, and I think only tripleo devs
have any intuition about it. For me tripleo == instack-undercloud.
This was only referring to rpm packaging, and it is how we currently
package most of the other projects. The repo itself would stay as one
thing, but would be split into python-tripleo and openstack-tripleo-api
rpms.
I don't massively care about package names, but given that there is no
(for example) openstack-nova package and openstack-tripleo is already in
use by a completely different project, I think it's reasonable to move
ahead with the split packages named this way.
Got it, sorry for confusion
What do others think?
Mainn
b) Put it in its own repo, tripleo-api
The first option made a lot of sense to people on IRC, as the
proposed
API is a very thin layer that's bound closely to the code in
tripleo-
common. The major objection is that renaming is not trivial;
however
it was mentioned that renaming might not be *too* bad... as long as
it's done sooner rather than later.
What do people think?
Thanks,
Tzu-Mainn Chen
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
<http://[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
