Re: [kernelci-tsc] New name for new "KernelCI"

Hello,


On 12/06/24 11:03 pm, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:

> On 6/12/24 7:27 PM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 6/12/24 11:56, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>> On 6/5/24 12:00 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov via groups.io wrote:
>>>> On 5/23/24 6:54 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>>>> As you know, we've been developing the new KernelCI API [1], and the
>>>>> kernelci-pipeline [2] based on it, for quite a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, by now it seems that too many things are being called "KernelCI":
>>>>> the
>>>>> project, pieces of the old system, pieces of the new system. We would also
>>>>> like to give the name of KernelCI the project a wider scope than just a
>>>>> particular CI system, and accommodate more packages/projects under its name.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we would like to propose to call the new system "KernelCI <Something>".
>>>>>
>>>>> And this message is about that "<Something>".
>>>> Almost two weeks have passed from my original message, and we have collected a
>>>> number of opinions and potential names. So I went ahead and created a poll to
>>>> help us pick the new name:
>>>>
>>>> https://forms.gle/GY2uWw3yGLA6u5EbA
>>>>
>>>> The poll requires authenticating to Google to limit the number of votes, but
>>>> if anyone has a problem with that, just post your response here (pick all the
>>>> options you like), and I'll add it myself. We'll close the poll in a week.
>>> The week has passed, and the poll is now closed. We've collected ten
>>> responses. An the clear winner is:
>>>
>>>       "Maestro"
That's nice and as expected.
>> Nice. So here comes Maestro!  This is a great step to clarify the new
>> architecture.
>> We should first patch that in the documentation together with the overdue update
>> on the overall KernelCI architecture. I can look into a patch for that next week.
Sounds good.
>> Now, when it comes to actually renaming the git repos and other things we want
>> to evaluate a proposal to bring kernelci-core, kernelci-api and
>> kernelci-pipeline into
>> a monorepo kci-maestro. But that would be post Plumbers possibly as our focus is
>> super sharper on showing the new KernelCI there.
Wouldn't that be complicated? That way we would be binding all the 3 repos
more closely instead of letting them work as separate entities. Maybe we can
consider renaming the repos to include "maestro" in it?
>> I guess we should also start tagging the maestro data in KernelCI as
>> 'kci-maestro' or
>> something like that and not 'kernelci' anymore. Jeny, thoughts on this?
> I'm happy that we got a name, and I quite like it too :D
>
> Let's also go over all this in the weekly tomorrow, and on the TSC calls!
>
> Regarding KCIDB, I think the origin should be simply "maestro", similar to
> other origins (like "0day", "tuxsuite", and "cki", not like company names that
> we also have).
"kci-meastro" looks more suitable to me than just "maestro" as that
mentions name of the CI system more precisely.
Any particular reason to drop "kci-" from the origin? @Nickolai

Thanks,
Jeny