Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-16 Thread Ruby Loo
On 10 November 2015 at 11:31, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > On 11/10/2015 05:21 PM, Brad P. Crochet wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Dmitry Tantsur >> wrote: >> >>> Hi all! >>> >>> I'd like to seek consensus (or at least some opinions) on patch

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Dean Troyer
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Brad P. Crochet wrote: > In this case, the noun is actually 'baremetal provision state'. The > 'action' is the states themselves. It doesn't fit exactly, but seems > to at least be somewhat natural. resource == provision state (add baremetal if

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Dean Troyer
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:14 AM, Brad P. Crochet wrote: > There was some discussion on one of the patches about changing to > 'baremetal node'. I was a little concerned by that since the original > 'baremetal' commands have landed, but I think since they landed > post-Liberty,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Brad P. Crochet
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > Hi all! > > I'd like to seek consensus (or at least some opinions) on patch > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206119/ > It proposed the following command: > I think it's time to actually just write up a spec on this.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Brad P. Crochet
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > Hi all! > > I'd like to seek consensus (or at least some opinions) on patch > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206119/ > It proposed the following command: > > openstack baremetal provision state --provide UUID > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
On 11/10/2015 05:21 PM, Brad P. Crochet wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: Hi all! I'd like to seek consensus (or at least some opinions) on patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206119/ It proposed the following command: I think it's time

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Brad P. Crochet
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Brad P. Crochet wrote: >> >> In this case, the noun is actually 'baremetal provision state'. The >> 'action' is the states themselves. It doesn't fit exactly, but seems >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Lucas Alvares Gomes
Hi, > Let's have a quick poll, which would you prefer and why: > > 1. openstack baremetal provision state --provide UUID > 2. openstack baremetal provision --provide UUID > 3. openstack baremetal provide UUID > 4. openstack baremetal set provision state --provide UUID > 5. openstack baremetal set

[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Quick poll: OpenStackClient command for provision action

2015-11-10 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
Hi all! I'd like to seek consensus (or at least some opinions) on patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/206119/ It proposed the following command: openstack baremetal provision state --provide UUID (where --provide can also be --active, --deleted, --inspect, etc). I have several issues