Open Stack

On Jan 22, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Jaromir Coufal <jcoufal at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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…
> 

Haha, sorry if this is my fault for reviving this whole thread :) Terminology is always tough. It probably makes sense to start with where we initially agreed and get some Operators eyes on the design so that they can weigh in. 

Liz

> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev