search

kubernetes-sigs / cluster-api

Home for Cluster API, a subproject of sig-cluster-lifecycle
https://cluster-api.sigs.k8s.io
Apache License 2.0
3.6k stars 1.33k forks source link

Discussion: Should we rename references to metal3.io from BareMetal Provider to metal3.io instead? #2447

Closed detiber closed 4 years ago

detiber commented 4 years ago

User Story

All references in documentation (and clusterctl) reference the metal3.io provider as the Baremetal Provider, which is a bit misleading. There could be multiple baremetal providers in the future, such as one that could leverage Packet's tinkerbell project.

vincepri commented 4 years ago

/milestone v0.3.0 /help /assign @maelk /kind cleanup

k8s-ci-robot commented 4 years ago

@vincepri: This request has been marked as needing help from a contributor.

Please ensure the request meets the requirements listed here.

If this request no longer meets these requirements, the label can be removed by commenting with the /remove-help command.

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/issues/2447): >/milestone v0.3.0 >/help >/assign @maelk >/kind cleanup Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
k8s-ci-robot commented 4 years ago

@vincepri: GitHub didn't allow me to assign the following users: maelk.

Note that only kubernetes-sigs members, repo collaborators and people who have commented on this issue/PR can be assigned. Additionally, issues/PRs can only have 10 assignees at the same time. For more information please see the contributor guide

In response to [this](https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/issues/2447#issuecomment-591578352): >/milestone v0.3.0 >/help >/assign @maelk >/kind cleanup Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available [here](https://git.k8s.io/community/contributors/guide/pull-requests.md). If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the [kubernetes/test-infra](https://github.com/kubernetes/test-infra/issues/new?title=Prow%20issue:) repository.
maelk commented 4 years ago

How far do you think we should go with the renaming ? Is it sufficient to rename it in the CAPI docs + clusterctl only ? What about the provider CRDs ? Moving from baremetalcluster.infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io to something like metal3cluster.infrastructure.cluster.x-k8s.io would completely break backwards compatibility, or force us to make some heavy conversion logic in the controllers. It would be a big change, but at the same time, it would be best to do it now than later, considering breaking backwards compatibility at this point is easier than later on with higher adoption levels.

maelk commented 4 years ago

I have made a PR to show the changes on CAPI side. Those are minors and can be done without hassle. However, I am a bit against further changes due to the API compatibility break related to renaming things within the provider itself. What do you think ?

kashifest commented 4 years ago

Is it sufficient to rename it in the CAPI docs + clusterctl only

IMHO, we should stick to renaming it in CAPI docs and clusterctl only. Changing the CRDs would not only require a lot of changes but it could potentially break the backwards compatibility as you correctly mentioned.

jan-est commented 4 years ago

I agree with @maelk and @kashifest. At this point I don't see any point of renaming it anywhere else than CAPI docs and clusterctl.