Open Stack

On 11/10/2015 05:21 PM, Brad P. Crochet wrote:
> 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?

+1

I'll block the first patch until we get consensus. Thanks for working on it!

>
>>    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
>
>
>