Oh dear user... :)
I'll step a little bit back. We need to agree if we want to name
concepts one way in the background and other way in the UI for user (did
we already agree on this point?). We all know pros and cons. And I will
still fight for users to get global infrastructure terminology (e.g. he
is going to define Node Profiles instead of Flavors). Because I received
a lot of negative feedback on mixing overcloud terms into undercloud,
confusion about overcloud/undercloud term itself, etc. If it would be
easier for developers to name the concepts in the background differently
then it's fine - we just need to talk about 2 terms per concept then.
And I would be a bit afraid of schizophrenia...
On 2014/22/01 15:10, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
That's a fair question; I'd argue that it *should* be resources. When we
update an overcloud deployment, it'll create additional resources.
Honestly it would get super confusing for me, if somebody tells me - you
have 5 compute resources. (And I am talking from user's world, not from
developers one). But resource itself can be anything.
-- Jarda
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
