Min, That is my recommendation with a task ticket to make the consistent post 4.2.0.
Thanks, -John On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > So from your email below, the consensus is to fix user visible elements (UI, > API, Configuration, Documentation) in 4.2, I will address that bug based on > this understanding. > > Thanks for your clarification. > -min > > From: John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > Date: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:38 AM > To: Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> > Cc: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>, dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>, > Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming > > Min, > > In my opinion, it is a blocker because it is very misleading to operations, > and once the name ships in documentation/UI/APIs it will essentially > irreversible. Furthermore, as a community, we agreed to make this change in > late May/early June. In view, community decisions for a release that are not > carried in a release should become a blocker. > > I added a comment the following comment to the ticket which, I hope, will > answer your question: > >> Min, >> >> Ideally, both. However, given the short window, the priority is for all user >> visible elements (e.g. API, UI, configuration files, documentation, etc). >> >> If we do not have time address code, please open a task ticket to refactor >> the naming internally for post-4.2.0 work. >> >> Thanks, >> -John > > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 12:31 PM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> I saw the blocker defect filed by you regarding this Nomenclature >> issue(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3818). Honestly >> speaking, this does not qualify as a BLOCKER since it is not blocking any >> functionality. One question I commented on the bug is: do you want to change >> our UI to call out as "Staging Storage" wherever we have Cache Storage >> showing up? Or you want us to change all our internal code class and method >> name (like needCacheStorage, etc) to use a different class/method name? We >> can do former quite easily, for latter, I don't think that it is that urgent >> compared to fixing other real functional blockers and criticals for 4.2 >> release, since that is internal implementation which will be totally >> shielded from CloudStack user. >> Please share your thoughts on this. >> >> Thanks >> -min >> >> From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> >> Date: Saturday, July 20, 2013 3:18 AM >> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> >> Cc: Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com>, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> >> Subject: Re: [ACS42] NFS Cache Naming >> >> NFS Staging it was in my recollection. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:30 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> It was my understanding that we had agreed to rename the "NFS Cache" >>> mechanism to reflect that it is not a cache and remove the assumption that >>> it will always be backed by NFS. Is my understanding correct? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -John >> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
