+1 for Triangel On 2 September 2016 at 17:34, joehuang <[email protected]> wrote:
> After the discussion in the #openstack-tricircle channel, 3 candidates > available now, please vote the name for the new sub-project for api-gateway > functionality: > > 1. Triangel > The Triangel are dolls that bring luck > 2. Tridonut > Three Donuts. Delicious food, often buy 3 get 1 free. > 3. Trifennel > Three Fennel. Fennel is highly prized for its licorice-like flavor and > the myriad of health benefits it provides > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang(joehuang) > > > *From:* joehuang > *Sent:* 02 September 2016 11:19 > *To:* openstack-dev; [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of > networking and gateway sub-projects > > I have some rough ideas about the name of gateway sub-project, for > example, triangle, tridonut, tricookie etc, so that we can see that > Tricircle and the new sub-project are like sibling in OpenStack. And they > often will be listed closely in order. > > Your thoughts? > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang(joehuang) > > ------------------------------ > *From:* joehuang > *Sent:* 02 September 2016 10:22 > *To:* openstack-dev; [email protected] > *Subject:* [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of > networking and gateway sub-projects > > Hello, > > If we want to divide Tricircle into two sub-projects, your proposals for > the name of sub-projects are welcome. > > Because the Tricircle is applying big-tent application, and the networking > part will be remained in the Tricircle repository, and continue the > big-tent application. So if we change the networking sub-project name from > "Tricircle" to another one, we have to update a lots of places: from infra, > to source code, to documentation, google docs, to wiki, etc, it's a huge > work, and history background will also be lost, from this point of view, I > proposal to remain current Tricircle repository name, but shrink the > Tricircle scope to cross Neutron networking automation. > > And for gateway part, a new repository is required, new project name is > more applicable, this is just my thoughts, would like to know your > proposals. > > Best Regards > Chaoyi Huang(joehuang) > > ________________________________________ > From: joehuang > Sent: 01 September 2016 9:02 > To: Monty Taylor; openstack-dev > Subject: RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in > Tricircle big-tent application > > Hello, Monty, > > Thank you very much for your guide and encouragement, then let's move on > this direction. > > Best regards > Chaoyi Huang (joehuang) > ________________________________________ > From: Monty Taylor [[email protected]] > Sent: 01 September 2016 0:37 > To: joehuang; openstack-dev > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in > Tricircle big-tent application > > On 08/31/2016 02:16 AM, joehuang wrote: > > Hello, team, > > > > During last weekly meeting, we discussed how to address TCs concerns in > > Tricircle big-tent application. After the weekly meeting, the proposal > > was co-prepared by our > > contributors: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_ > rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E > > > > The more doable way is to divide Tricircle into two independent and > > decoupled projects, only one of the projects which deal with networking > > automation will try to become an big-tent project, And Nova/Cinder > > API-GW will be removed from the scope of big-tent project application, > > and put them into another project: > > > > *TricircleNetworking:* Dedicated for cross Neutron networking automation > > in multi-region OpenStack deployment, run without or with > > TricircleGateway. Try to become big-tent project in the current > > application of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/. > > Great idea. > > > *TricircleGateway:* Dedicated to provide API gateway for those who need > > single Nova/Cinder API endpoint in multi-region OpenStack deployment, > > run without or with TricircleNetworking. Live as non-big-tent, > > non-offical-openstack project, just like Tricircle toady’s status. And > > not pursue big-tent only if the consensus can be achieved in OpenStack > > community, including Arch WG and TCs, then decide how to get it on board > > in OpenStack. A new repository is needed to be applied for this project. > > > > > > And consider to remove some overlapping implementation in Nova/Cinder > > API-GW for global objects like flavor, volume type, we can configure one > > region as master region, all global objects like flavor, volume type, > > server group, etc will be managed in the master Nova/Cinder service. In > > Nova API-GW/Cinder API-GW, all requests for these global objects will be > > forwarded to the master Nova/Cinder, then to get rid of any API > > overlapping-implementation. > > > > More information, you can refer to the proposal draft > > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_ > rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E, > > > > your thoughts are welcome, and let's have more discussion in this weekly > > meeting. > > I think this is a great approach Joe. > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
