Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Troyer <dtroyer at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:16 PM
> 
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 5:00 AM Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > >     $ openstack accelerator create device-profile <args>
> > i think this should be "openstack acclerator device-profile create"
> > looking how "security group rule create" works the action is always
> > last in the osc commands

The osc documentation [1] says the syntax should be 'object-1 action object-2'. Your other points are well-taken.

[1] https://docs.openstack.org/python-openstackclient/latest/contributor/humaninterfaceguide.html#command-structure

> The resource name should be clear and descriptive and unique.
> Depending on the set of resources you have in whole you may want
> 'accelerator profile', I would leave 'device' out as it does not really add
> anything unless you also have other types of profiles.

The object itself is called a device profile, in the specs and in code. 

> > the main disadvantage to integrating osc intree will be review time.
> > e.g. as the cyborg core team ye will not have +2 rights on osc but if
> > you have your own osc plugin then the cyborg core team can also manage
> the cli for cyborg.
> 
> This is true, the number of people reviewing regularly on OSC outside their
> specific project commands is small.

This may be the clinching argument. Also, Sean's observation that "as it stands we have been moving [toward] the everything is a plugin side of that scale." Since we need to deliver the client by Train, and the Cyborg team doing that is also doing other activities, perhaps we should keep the timeline as the main factor.

Thanks, Sean, Dean and Eric for your inputs.

Cyborg folks, it is time to weigh in.

> dt

Thanks & Regards,
Sundar