Consider adopting the term "workflow" in place of "partial pipeline"

[ankostis]

Congratulations for your new project.

I just like to suggest to replace the 2-word term "partial-pipeline" with "(actual) workflow", which i find it more intuitive.

[ankostis]

Actually, the "instantiated pipeline" executed on each run is always different from the "pipeline definition", even if they both contain the exact same nodes.
But for that case, the "partial pipeline" is a misnomer.

[idanov]

@ankostis Thank you very much for your feedback! Could you please provide links to the places in the documentation which make the term partial pipeline confusing? Would something like subpipeline be more appropriate there?

[ankostis]

I think you missunderstood me, there is no confusion in the docs as it is now.
My suggestion is a matter of adopting terminology closely related to ETL solutions.

When a pipeline gets instantiated, it can be called "instantiated pipeline" but you can also adopt the term "workflow" to describe it in a single word. And then the "partial instantiated pipeline" becomes "partial workflow", which is handily shorter.

If you disagree, please, feel free to close this issue.

[idanov]

@ankostis Sorry for the missunderstanding, I think I get now what you meant. Thank you for raising this! At the moment it doesn't make sense for us to change the term to workflow since we don't use that term internally. However I think it's worth leaving the issue open and if more people express interest in changing that term to workflow, we'll be happy to change it.

[921kiyo]

I am closing this now, but we might re-open it if more people express interest :)