-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add text discussing the approach to flavors. #121
Conversation
In short, the naming proposal serves two purposes. (1) Provide transparency on features/details/capabilities (2) Allow users to chose the right features There is not really good alternative for (2) to create names. We have chosen a systematic approach to it, which allows to generate/parse this programmatically (and manually if you are familiar with the spec), but which can lead to rather complex names in extreme cases. To only achieve (1), better ways exist by using metadata (extra_specs). So smaller providers that don't need users to chose between so many flavors don't need to encode all the details in the name, but could use short names (which is allowed by the spec) and make details discoverable via a to-be-written metadata spec. This is the suggested approach going forward. Signed-off-by: Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de>
Rendered text can be reviewed here: https://github.com/SovereignCloudStack/Docs/blob/feat/flavor-naming-strategy/Design-Docs/flavor-naming-strategy.md |
|
||
You can also use the interactive mode `-i` to construct flavor names. | ||
|
||
If you dislike the hazzle of parsing the names, you may want to consider them |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hassle, not hazzle
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM except for hazzle -> hassle.
I'm also a big fan that we merge these kind of PRs rather quickly and do subsequent PRs to let them become better instead of having long running PRs - and it is marked 'draft' anyways.
Further note: Thanks @garloff for writing this up! 🚀 |
Signed-off-by: Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de>
... and add pointer to gx-self-description-generator. Signed-off-by: Kurt Garloff <kurt@garloff.de>
* Create status page comparison.md Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> * (see SovereignCloudStack#121) - move "status page comparison" to new folder Decisions - update file name to a name without whitespaces Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de>
* Create status page comparison.md Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> * (see SovereignCloudStack#121) - move "status page comparison" to new folder Decisions - update file name to a name without whitespaces Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> * (see SovereignCloudStack#121) add statusfy to the matrix Signed-off-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de> Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de> Signed-off-by: Felix Kronlage-Dammers <fkr@hazardous.org> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de> Co-authored-by: Felix Kronlage-Dammers <fkr@hazardous.org>
* Create status page comparison.md Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> * (see SovereignCloudStack#121) - move "status page comparison" to new folder Decisions - update file name to a name without whitespaces Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> * (see SovereignCloudStack#121) add statusfy to the matrix Signed-off-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de> Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> * Add project URL or github link Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Benjamin <2255421+master-caster@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de> Signed-off-by: Felix Kronlage-Dammers <fkr@hazardous.org> Co-authored-by: Benjamin Zapiec <zcbn9343@largo.intranet.gonicus.de> Co-authored-by: Felix Kronlage-Dammers <fkr@hazardous.org>
In short, the naming proposal serves two purposes. (1) Provide transparency on features/details/capabilities (2) Allow users to chose the right features
There is not really good alternative for (2) to create names. We have chosen a systematic approach to it, which allows to generate/parse this programmatically (and manually if you are familiar with the spec), but which can lead to rather complex names in extreme cases.
To only achieve (1), better ways exist by using metadata (extra_specs). So smaller providers that don't need users to chose between so many flavors don't need to encode all the details in the name, but could use short names (which is allowed by the spec) and make details discoverable via a to-be-written metadata spec. This is the suggested approach going forward.
This is an attempt to address #73.
Signed-off-by: Kurt Garloff kurt@garloff.de