Skip to content
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

baremetal: expand baremetal IPI docs to include customizations #2931

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Feb 13, 2020

Conversation

stbenjam
Copy link
Member

The platform now has a bunch of optional possible customizations, this
expands the documentation to follow the other platforms by including a
customization.md that details each of the options and why you might want
to use them.

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Jan 15, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files. label Jan 15, 2020
@stbenjam stbenjam changed the title [WIP] baremetal: expand baremetal IPI docs to include customizations baremetal: expand baremetal IPI docs to include customizations Feb 12, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot removed the do-not-merge/work-in-progress Indicates that a PR should not merge because it is a work in progress. label Feb 12, 2020
@stbenjam
Copy link
Member Author

This is probably good enough for a first pass, would someone mind taking a look?

/assign @abhinavdahiya
/cc @hardys

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

Why is this different in structure and formatting compared to https://github.com/openshift/installer/blob/195a8aa017031966f99331559f2d06a35fedda2d/docs/user/aws/customization.md ??

I would like to see them be similarly formatted.

Also can we no create new metal/ipi directory, and keep this in the same directory, this new one might create more confusion.

@stbenjam
Copy link
Member Author

stbenjam commented Feb 13, 2020

I don't like the AWS formatting because we need to group settings together (e.g. here's all the networking-related things you can tweak), and we also need much more prose to describe what it does than AWS documentation conveys in it's simple bulleted list and minimal examples. The AWS examples are also disconnected from the documentation.

@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

I don't like the AWS formatting because we need to group settings together (e.g. here's all the networking-related things you can tweak), and we also need much more prose to describe what it does than AWS documentation conveys in it's simple bulleted list and minimal examples.

I think the format there should be able to support your list and also provide a way to look at all the fields available..

I don't see how it hinders your "group settings together" or add as much prose your need with the examples.

@stbenjam
Copy link
Member Author

Can you clarify the complaint? This is awfully nitpicky. It uses the same title format as AWS, and we don't have machine-pool scoped parameters. Do you want another layer of headers that clarifies these are all Cluster-scoped properties?

I absolutely want examples in-line with the text, and the grouping as I've written it.

@stbenjam
Copy link
Member Author

I'll push an update in a minute with a few formatting changes that make it look closer to AWS, but I don't think it needs to be exact...

@stbenjam stbenjam force-pushed the baremetal-docs branch 2 times, most recently from b0727ef to b8ebcc7 Compare February 13, 2020 00:39
@stbenjam
Copy link
Member Author

PTAL, I've updated the formatting.

The platform now has a bunch of optional possible customizations, this
expands the documentation to follow the other platforms by including a
customization.md that details each of the options and why you might want
to use them.
@abhinavdahiya
Copy link
Contributor

I absolutely want examples in-line with the text, and the grouping as I've written it.

Sure, if you must.

/approve
/lgtm

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. label Feb 13, 2020
@abhinavdahiya abhinavdahiya added the bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. label Feb 13, 2020
@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: abhinavdahiya

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@openshift-ci-robot openshift-ci-robot added the approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. label Feb 13, 2020
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

4 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

5 similar comments
@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-bot
Copy link
Contributor

/retest

Please review the full test history for this PR and help us cut down flakes.

@openshift-ci-robot
Copy link
Contributor

openshift-ci-robot commented Feb 13, 2020

@stbenjam: The following tests failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests:

Test name Commit Details Rerun command
ci/prow/e2e-aws-fips b598970 link /test e2e-aws-fips
ci/prow/e2e-aws-scaleup-rhel7 b598970 link /test e2e-aws-scaleup-rhel7

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard. Please help us cut down on flakes by linking to an open issue when you hit one in your PR.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

@openshift-merge-robot openshift-merge-robot merged commit 1656e89 into openshift:master Feb 13, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approved Indicates a PR has been approved by an approver from all required OWNERS files. bugzilla/valid-bug Indicates that a referenced Bugzilla bug is valid for the branch this PR is targeting. lgtm Indicates that a PR is ready to be merged. size/M Denotes a PR that changes 30-99 lines, ignoring generated files.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants