3:28 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:03:04 PM
----- Original Message -----
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 11:39:42 AM
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Ayal Baron" <abaron(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:46:44 PM
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Einav Cohen" <ecohen(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > To: "Andrew Cathrow" <acathrow(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, "Simon Grinberg"
> > > > > > <sgrinber(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > > > "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>,
"Geert
> > > > > > Jansen" <gjansen(a)redhat.com>, "Ori
Liel"
> > > > > > <oliel(a)redhat.com>,
> > > > > > "Yair
> > > > > > Zaslavsky" <yzaslavs(a)redhat.com>, "Ayal
Baron"
> > > > > > <abaron(a)redhat.com>, "Miki Kenneth"
<mkenneth(a)redhat.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 2:05:55 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > updated
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The important thing is that it's clear what it is
- eg.
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > remote/target not the local mount point. That could
be
> > > > > > > accomplished
> > > > > > > in the tool tip, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if there will be a tool-tip (or similar) in the GUI
> > > > > > explaining
> > > > > > what this field is supposed to be, are you OK with
> > > > > > keeping
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > term
> > > > > > "Path" (in both GUI and rest-api)?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am , does everyone else agree.
> > > >
> > > > either 'path' or 'device'
> > >
> > > - "Path" it is.
> > > - Instead of a tool-tip, I suggest to use an explanation
> > > caption
> > > below the text-box (similar to what we have for NFS storage
> > > domain
> > > -
> > > see attached). Agreed?
> >
> > i.e. "Path to device to mount / remote export" or something?
>
> Yes, that's a good answer to the question afterwards :)
> But what do you think about the general idea of using an
> explanation
> caption below the "Path" text-box (instead of a tool-tip that was
> suggested here earlier)?
>
> Also, do you think that the above should be the exact phrasing? The
> NFS one is:
> "Please use 'FQDN:/path' or 'IP:/path' Example
> 'server.example.com:/export/VMs'"
> so maybe a "Please use" should be incorporated in this case as
> well,
> maybe also an example, etc.
> What do you think?
I replied after viewing the other message and disliking it (personal
opinion). I prefer a static explanation (what the field is) rather
than an action request.
So in the NFS example I would've phrased it as "Remote path to NFS
export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g.
server.example.com:/export/VMs".
But in any event it is better to have consistency (so both messages
should probably be phrased similarly).
There is no problem changing the phrasing for NFS.
So for NFS, the caption will be:
"Remote path to NFS export, takes either the form: FQDN:/path or IP:/path, e.g.
server.example.com:/export/VMs".
And for PosixFS, the caption will be:
"Path to device to mount / remote export".
(no 'takes the form' or example provided)
Agreed?
>
> >
> >
> > > - What should be the exact phrasing of the explanation text?
> > >
> > > > "mount [-fnrsvw] [-t vfstype] [-o options] device dir"
> > > >
> > > > device is what is being mounted and in the case of NFS is
> > > > server:path
> > > >
> > > > There is a reason why we termed it PosixFS and not SharedFS
> > > > and
> > > > that
> > > > users can specify local devices/FS's (and there is no reason
> > > > to
> > > > limit it).
> > > >
> > > > Note that if user defines a local FS and adds 2 hosts to the
> > > > Posix
> > > > FS
> > > > DC then 1 host will be non-op
> > > >
> > > > Miki - this is not cluster level seeing as PosixFS is a DC
> > > > type
> > > > (afaik) so no need for tooltips about that.
> > > >
> > > > In the future when we get rid of the single storage type in
> > > > DC
> > > > limitation then we'll be able to define a local posixFS
> > > > domain
> > > > and
> > > > a
> > > > shared one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andrew/Geert/Simon/Ayal/Miki/Saggi/others:
Please
> > > > > > > > feel
> > > > > > > > free
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > suggest a new term, or vote for one of the
> > > > > > > > previously-discussed
> > > > > > > > terms ("Remote Path" / "Path"
/ "Mount Spec" / "File
> > > > > > > > System
> > > > > > > > URI").
> > > > > > > > If no decision will be made here, the term will
> > > > > > > > remain
> > > > > > > > as-is,
> > > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > "Path".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>