Open Stack

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 
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