----- Original Message -----
> 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

Jarda, sidepoint - could you explain again what the attributes of a node profile
are?  Beyond the Flavor, does it also define an image. . . ?

Mainn


> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to