Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Moti Asayag" <masayag(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2014 4:08:45 PM > Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Moti Asayag" <masayag(a)redhat.com&gt; >> To: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; >> Cc: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org >> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:33:06 PM >> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Eli Mesika" <emesika(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> Cc: devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:56:50 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Yair Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>> To: devel(a)ovirt.org >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:20:18 PM >>>> Subject: [ovirt-devel] Entity names in DB scripts >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> I have a feeling there is some inconsistency in using entity names in >>>> the >>>> DB >>>> scripts. >>>> For example, should we use Host or VDS? >>>> I am not talking about existing tables or columns but about new ones >>>> (and >>>> new >>>> stored procedures). >>>> >>>> I am quite sure I saw patches containing both approaches. >> >> I guess that includes any recent patches around the network area. >> >>> >>> You are right >>> I think old should be kept until we have the time to do a global >>> find/replace >>> of all old names. >> >> Without enabling the "new" (or more appropriate) naming to new code we: >> 1. Increase the amount of 'old' code in the system (gaining more debts) >> 2. As a result - more work when and if global change will take affect. >> 3. Double the entire work flow: code + review. >> >> That change should start at some point, and having it incrementally is a >> valid approach >> to achieve that goal. > > I basically agree, but first someone (that can say that) should say that we > are going to do that and allocate resources to this tasks , unless , you are > left in hybrid ugly condition Guys please post the list of Entities and let's agree on new names. Once this is done - each maintainer/reviewer should start enforcing that policy in his reviews. I don't think this task should have specific task force allocated for that. As a guide line - Those patches (rename patches) should be separated from the logic change (on top of the name change patches).