perfsonar development work

[Gijs Molenaar <>]

Roman Lapacz wrote:
> Luis Marta wrote:
>> Hi Roman
>>  
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Roman Lapacz 
>>> [mailto:]
>>>  Sent:
>>> quinta-feira, 31 de Julho de 2008 10:58
>>>
>>>    
>>>> We also need to rename packages and filenames. The list that that
>>>> should be followed by each service is described in this wiki page:
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> http://wiki.perfsonar.net/jra1-wiki/index.php/PerfSONAR_v3.1_filenames
>>>
>>> I don't understand why we need those new names. In my opinion our
>>> services are not only created for MDM deployment so we should keep
>>> general already existing names.
>>> Could you give us the reasons of name changes.
>>>     
>>
>> You are right, each service goes through its own release before (and
>> sometimes independent of) the perfSONAR-MDM bundle/package release
>> management. It's what we call a micro-release. A micro-release can
>> have several audiences, but when the targeted audience
>> is the release management team, then the micro-released product has to be
>> put into a bundle and provided officially to the users. Before, it
>> must pass
>> a hand-over process. The hand-over process establishes some rules to
>> reach the objective of
>> having different products bundled together to look like one product,
>> with a
>> similar installation procedure and user experience.
>>   
> 
> Similar installation procedure is reasonable to make user's work easier
> but changing names does not give us anything.
> I don't see the reason to support different names for micro-releases and
> mdm bundle release. Why just can't we provide a list of services (their
> already existing names and version numbers) which belong to
> perfSONAR-MDM mdm bundle ver. 3.1?
> 
> (If we wanted to have a service, being made by US guys, in mdm bundle
> then will they have to change the name as well?)

I agree. Butr I had this discussion before with loukik, but he told me
that renaming it to ps-mdm was the best of all other evil choices.

I understand that if the internet2 guys want to develop their own
service or fork something, they have the right to use the perfsonar name
also. The problem which next is that there is the possibility that 2
parties (geant2/internet2) want to use the same name. Loukik decided to
rename the services to ps-mdm- to evade such problems in the future.

But still I don't see any advantage in a usability point of view to
rename the services to include ps-mdm, other than that using
<creator>-<language>-<service>-<servicetype> is ridiculous. But adding
the -mdm in the package name is only extra overhead for the package
creators. I think the ps-mdm bundle should be a list/package of independ
packages.

So it is a political choice which brings a strange and illogical
implementation result. That all said, I still really don't like the
ps-mdm- choice.


-- 
Gijs Molenaar

fingerprint C660 BABA 4B91 4B5C EB60 7739 4385 8ABA 72EE 99CA

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature