Open Stack

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Brad P. Crochet <brad at redhat.com> 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 namespacing is required)
action == set
value == --state x|y|z

provision state set --state active|deleted|provide <id>

(note: I'd rethink those state names and see if they can feel more
consistent)

> 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 state --provide UUID
> > 6. openstack baremetal action --provide UUID
>
> I think my vote would be for #4 (or #5 if 'state' alone is enough to
> convey the intent). I would love to get an OSC person's view on that
> one. (Question already asked in another post)


state by itself is not very meaningful.  if 'baremetal state' is meaningful
to a user that might be OK.  But what thing has that state?  A node?  I
don't know what 'provision state' also refers to, a node? a port?

dt

-- 

Dean Troyer
dtroyer at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151110/a99c9cde/attachment.html>