----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15068/#review27750 -----------------------------------------------------------
I agree with the spirit of what's being done here, but something about changing vlan to vnet just doesn't seem quite right. I guess it just doesn't pass the "obviousness" test... if someone is navigating and they see "vNet range(s)" they either have to guess that it's ok to put vlan ids in there or look up the documentation. People may assume that it refers to vxnet or some other isolation method. Ideally we'd change the label based on the network's isolation method, but if that's too much work, would it be ok to change it to "VLAN/VNI Range", or something along those lines? Most of the other labels are longer than that, so it seems like there'd be room. - Marcus Sorensen On Oct. 29, 2013, 11:02 p.m., Chris Cameron wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/15068/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 29, 2013, 11:02 p.m.) > > > Review request for cloudstack and Toshiaki Hatano. > > > Repository: cloudstack-git > > > Description > ------- > > We would like to change the labels for VLAN to vNet to make the term more > generic for VXLAN and VLAN. This relates to the work being done to add in > VXLAN support to Cloudstack. > > > Diffs > ----- > > client/WEB-INF/classes/resources/messages.properties 3210aca > ui/dictionary.jsp 35cba22 > ui/scripts/network.js 12e5389 > ui/scripts/system.js 479883c > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15068/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Chris Cameron > >
