add glossary to documentation #1001
Conversation
Add a more definitive glossary in a separate file, pulling terms from other existing locations as the starting point.
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
cncf-cla: yes
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
needs-ok-to-test
|
Hi @dhellmann. Thanks for your PR. I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs or kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the I understand the commands that are listed here. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
size/L
|
/ok-to-test |
k8s-ci-robot
added
kind/documentation
| authors: | ||
| - "@dhellmann" | ||
| reviewers: | ||
| - "@timothysc" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be the union of both cluster-api-admins and cluster-api-maintainers here: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/cluster-api/blob/master/OWNERS_ALIASES
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should I update the authors, reviewers, or both?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine for the creator of the doc, it's not an OWNERS file.
| authors: | ||
| - "@dhellmann" | ||
| reviewers: | ||
| - "@timothysc" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's fine for the creator of the doc, it's not an OWNERS file.
docs/glossary.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ### Horizontal Scaling | ||
|
|
||
| TBD |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The ability to add more machines based on policy and well defined metrics. For example, add a machine to a cluster when CPU load average > (X) for a period of time (Y).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should have added this earlier.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about if we leave adding that to another PR? I'd like everyone to get in the habit of updating this document as we go along and write other docs.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The trick is to determine who will submit the PR and when? For non-trivial changes, I would recommend opening an issue. For trivial changes, it seems easier just to make the change and save the time of an additional lgtm/approve cycle.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW, I'd be willing to make this change today. Along with adding a link to the glossary to the GitBook...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm still working out the process myself, so if you want me to make the changes here, that's fine. But I also don't mind filing a separate PR, or having you do it.
| --- | ||
| title: Glossary | ||
| authors: | ||
| - "@dhellmann" |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: dhellmann, timothysc The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
approved
|
/hold The hold is for the remaining feedback from Tim. |
k8s-ci-robot
added
do-not-merge/hold
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
lgtm
|
/hold cancel |
k8s-ci-robot
removed
the
do-not-merge/hold
|
/lgtm |
k8s-ci-robot
added
the
lgtm
|
/test pull-cluster-api-build |
What this PR does / why we need it:
Move the glossary section out of the scope document into its own document
and format it so it is easier to link directly to specific terms from
other locations. This reduces the need to duplicate definitions in
multiple design documents and makes it more obvious where to write down
terms when we find communication issues.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):NONE
Special notes for your reviewer:
Please confirm that if this PR changes any image versions, then that's the sole change this PR makes.
No images are changed.
Release note:
NONE