----- 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
