Open Stack

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll give that patch another crack.

-Angus

On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Qiming Teng <tengqim at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:20:43AM +0200, Thomas Spatzier wrote:
> > > From: Mike Spreitzer <mspreitz at us.ibm.com>
> > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List \(not for usage questions\)"
> > > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > > Date: 19/09/2014 07:15
> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] naming of provider template for
> docs
> > >
> > > Angus Salkeld <asalkeld at mirantis.com> wrote on 09/18/2014 09:33:56 PM:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > >
> > > > I am trying to add some docs to openstack-manuals hot_guide about
> > > > using provider templates : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121741/
> > >
> > > > Mike has suggested we use a different term, he thinks "provider" is
> > > > confusing.
> > > > I agree that at the minimum, it is not very descriptive.
> > >
> > > > Mike has suggested "nested stack", I personally think this means
> > > something a
> > > > bit more general to many of us (it includes the concept of aws
> > > stacks) and may
> > > > I suggest "template resource" - note this is even the class name for
> > > > this exact functionality.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > > Option 1) stay as is "provider templates"
> > > > Option 2) "nested stack"
> > > > Option 3) "template resource"
> >
> > Out of those 3 I like #3 the most, even though not perfect as Mike
> > discussed below.
>
> > >
> > > Thanks for rising to the documentation challenge and trying to get
> > > good terminology.
> > >
> > > I think your intent is to describe a category of resources, so your
> > > option 3 is superior to option 1 --- the thing being described is
> > > not a template, it is a resource (made from a template).
> > >
> > > I think
> > >
> > > Option 4) "custom resource"
> >
> > That one sound too generic to me, since also custom python based resource
> > plugins are custom resources.
>
> +1.
>
> 'Custom resource' may cause more confusion.
>
> > >
> > > would be even better.  My problem with "template resource" is that,
> > > to someone who does not already know what it means, this looks like
> > > it might be a kind of resource that is a template (e.g., for
> > > consumption by some other resource that does something with a
> > > template), rather than itself being something made from a template.
> > > If you want to follow this direction to something perfectly clear,
> > > you might try "templated resource" (which is a little better) or
> > > "template-based resource" (which I think is pretty clear but a bit
> > > wordy) --- but an AWS::CloudFormation::Stack is also based on a
> > > template.  I think that if you try for a name that really says all
> > > of the critical parts of the idea, you will get something that is
> > > too wordy and/or awkward.  It is true that "custom resource" begs
> > > the question of how the user accomplishes her customization, but at
> > > least now we have the reader asking the right question instead of
> > > being misled.
> >
> > I think "template-based resource" really captures the concept best. And
> it
> > is not too wordy IMO.
> > If it helps to explain the concept intuitively, I would be in favor of
> it.
>
> Agreed. If it sounds too wordy, just use 'template resource' would be
> okay.
>
> > Regards,
> > Thomas
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140922/d5afd489/attachment.html>