Hi, On Wed, 10-May-2017 19:14, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 5:11 PM, James Strachan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > or let me say that differently - lets try be as similar to minikube as we > > can? > > > > > Sure, thats the general idea/guideline. But then we have some sub-commands > which is under openshift command and we moved the service command under > OpenShift (after fixing it for OpenShift) and put it with other > sub-commands which should be logically grouped together.
+1, I second this. We try to align as much as possible with Minikube, but in some cases it also makes sense to take a different approach. We introduced the openshift sub-command to group together some functionality which deal with OpenShift specifics. Given that we changed the implementation of the service command and the fact that in OpenShift you are dealing with routes, it felt natural to move the 'service' command. > Even if we want to keep things similar to Minikube as we want to cater > folks coming from Minikube to Minishift but we need to do things which > make sense logically, otherwise Minishift will result in to a project > without a definite character. +1 --Hardy
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devtools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
