On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Hardy Ferentschik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > > >> Agreed. BTW 'minikube service foo` seems to work fine upstream on > > >> minikube for services with nodeports - haven't tested on ingress yet > (and > > >> route isn't possible I suspect on minikube?) > > >> > > > > > > No that's my point: the fact that we learned from minishift that users > > > would want to see routes in `minishift service` should IMO have > translated > > > into contributing similar functionality upstream first to add ingress > to > > > the current nodeport output. Minishift would then add routes to > output, > > > but still the command `minishift service` would have been almost > consistent > > > in behaviour to `minikube service`, with that one difference around > routes. > > > > > > > OK, so let's see if we can fix this targeting the next point release. > > Well, we start with an issue and take it from there. Personally I believe > in > this particular case we did the right thing. > Take this as feedback from us as users rather than engineers... as a user that moves between minikube and minishift (a user group I believe we were targeting with minishift) the lack of consistency is annoying. Regardless of what shared code there is, I, as a user, prefer the command and ux to be consistent. > > --Hardy > >
_______________________________________________ Devtools mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/devtools
