Open Stack

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 4:09 AM, Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> 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. I think we
would be better served to spell it out now, and then more people can
contribute to both the spec and to the actual implementation once the
spec is approved.

WDYT?

>   openstack baremetal provision state --provide UUID
>
> (where --provide can also be --active, --deleted, --inspect, etc).
>
> I have several issues with this proposal:
>
> 1. IIUC the structure of an OSC command is "openstack noun verb". "provision
> state" is not a verb.
> 2. --active is not consistent with other options, which are verbs.
>
> 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 vote for #3. Though it's much more versbose, it reads very easily, except
> for "active". For active I'm thinking about changing it to "activate" or
> "provision".
>
> My next candidate is #6. Though it's also not a verb, it reads pretty
> easily.
>
> Thanks!
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



-- 
Brad P. Crochet, RHCA, RHCE, RHCVA, RHCDS
Principal Software Engineer
(c) 704.236.9385 (w) 919.301.3231