#solum

devdatta-kulkarni proposed stackforge/solum: Deployer refactoring https://review.openstack.org/178771

Ed Cranford proposed stackforge/solum: Destroy other assemblies on successful deploy https://review.openstack.org/180221

Murali Allada proposed stackforge/solum: (WIP) Support for pluggable keystone client https://review.openstack.org/179804

Merged stackforge/solum: Deployer refactoring https://review.openstack.org/178771

James Li proposed stackforge/solum: Revert "Deployer refactoring" https://review.openstack.org/180630

Murali Allada proposed stackforge/solum: (WIP) Support for pluggable keystone client https://review.openstack.org/179804

devdatta-kulkarni proposed stackforge/solum: Deploying refactoring fix https://review.openstack.org/180656

devdatta-kulkarni proposed stackforge/python-solumclient: Ensuring artifact name is lower case https://review.openstack.org/180661

Merged stackforge/python-solumclient: Fix "app show" NotFound error message https://review.openstack.org/179512

well that was quick

muralia: is your keystone work still a wip? looks like jenkins likes it as is

datsun180b: we were missing a 'not'?! https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180661/1/solum...

Good point. I can remove the WIP now

james_li: if the name wasn't compliant we'd lower() it

though now that i think about it that's not enough, what we ought to do is lower it and then check for compliance

so if it's still not good we drop out

let me remove my +2

please

complacency is a killer

another way is to generate some valid name w/o asking user;s input again

i don't know, that may be too surprising

+1 only if the name is cute

e.g. 'angry_wombat'

augh i hate those

i'd prefer a uuid4 because it gets the message across very sternly that your name was bad and you need to try harder in the future

i never thought of UUIDs as a form of punishment

they're hard to memorize without some ridiculous hash schema