On 12/08/2015 05:59 PM, Adam Young wrote:
I think it is kindof irrelevant. It can be there or not be there in the
URL itself, so long as it does not show up in the service catalog. From
an policy standpoint, having the project in the URL means that you can
do an access control check without
On 03/12/15 12:06 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
For folks that don't know, we've got an effort under way to look at some
of what's happened with the service catalogue, how it's organically grown,
and do some pruning and tuning to make sure it's going to support what
we want to do with OpenStack for
On 12/03/2015 12:06 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
So, for Cinder, Glance, Ironic, Manila, Magnum (and others I might have
missed) where are you standing on this one? And are there volunteers in
those projects to help move this forward?
i'm +1 for removing the project_id from the url.
sahara uses it
On 12/08/2015 05:55 PM, michael mccune wrote:
On 12/03/2015 12:06 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
So, for Cinder, Glance, Ironic, Manila, Magnum (and others I might have
missed) where are you standing on this one? And are there volunteers in
those projects to help move this forward?
i'm +1 for removing
Manila uses "project_id"s in URLs as Cinder does. So, the same amount of
work for each of projects is required.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Jim Rollenhagen
wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:06, Sean Dague wrote:
> >
> > For folks that don't know,
For folks that don't know, we've got an effort under way to look at some
of what's happened with the service catalogue, how it's organically grown,
and do some pruning and tuning to make sure it's going to support what
we want to do with OpenStack for the next 5 years (wiki page to dive
deeper
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:06, Sean Dague wrote:
>
> For folks that don't know, we've got an effort under way to look at some
> of what's happened with the service catalogue, how it's organically grown,
> and do some pruning and tuning to make sure it's going to support what
> we