On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Jaromir Coufal <jcou...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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… > Haha, sorry if this is my fault for reviving this whole thread :) Terminology is always tough. It probably makes sense to start with where we initially agreed and get some Operators eyes on the design so that they can weigh in. Liz > > 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 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
