On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Xav Paice <xavpa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 11 March 2016 at 10:45, Morgan Fainberg <morgan.fainb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Xav Paice <xavpa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> A simple list is probably enough for a quick ref - it's not a massive >>> blocker if two projects slip up and get the same port number, and yes if >>> they're doing subpaths and not ports then great. Doesn't need to be a gate >>> item. But it helps communications if we have a list, even if that's >>> temporary. >>> >>> >> I really disagree that it doesn't need to be a gate item. It should >> absolutely be gated on that services can run as a subpath. >> > > Ah - yes I didn't make that very clear at all, did I.... I don't think > that selecting port numbers that don't conflict with other projects should > be a gate item, simply because it's easy to change, and we're trying to > steer away from that model. I'm OK with that. But yes, subpaths being > unique should be gated otherwise we'll have all sorts of pain. > Fantastic! We're on the same page then. :)
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
