Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:59:02PM CEST, jpirko(a)redhat.com wrote:
Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 02:00:00PM CEST, rpazdera(a)redhat.com wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I was going through some recipes earlier today and came up with this
>thought: What if we renamed the <machines> section to <network>?
>
>It's almost too late for that, but using network instead of machines
>could make much more sense in the future when we plan to extend the pool
>of supported entities from machines also to switches, possibly routers
>and other devices.
>
>This way, we would always have to add a new section like
>
> <routers>
> <switches>
> etc.
>
>But in case it would be called <network> we would just add new child
>element. It would be also much more readable that way -- you have a
>network of nodes that are connected through their interfaces and you
>have tasks for that network.
>
>I know that names don't matter that much in the long run, but (imho)
>they matter a lot when you try to explain these concepts to newcommers
>(which is probably what we would like to do after the release).
>
>What do you guys think about this? :-)
I think that this is very good idea. I say let's do it now, before the
release. It's just a name anyway, but we want to stay xml-consistent after
the release.
Jiri
Come on, not again! :-)
On the other hand better to do this now than after. Note that wiki will have
to be updated once again after this change.