Re: [Engine-devel] PosixFS: GUI mock-ups have been updated
----- 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.
>
> > 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".
> >
> ...