On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:39 PM Andrew Wilkinson
I wouldn’t see a Test definition (3) as a ‘blueprint’.
Nor would I see specific functional components (2) developed by the Akraino community as ‘blueprints’ either.
I think using the term blueprint for everything tends to make the term too broad. The term blueprint in common parlance is taken to mean the definition of how to build something (e.g. a building – a house or a shed etc). I could of course be expanded to encompass more (like a test blueprint) but would suggest we keep Akraino blueprints to be more specific and not include functionality or test schedules.
I tend to agree. The term "blueprint" in Akraino is already confusing
enough, even without using it also in the OpenStack Blueprint kind of
Rather I propose a blueprint be used to classify a set of options that cab result in distinct POD deployments. The term ‘Network Clod blueprint’ would be used as such.
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints
I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
Frank Zdarsky | NFV&SDN Technology Strategy, Office of the CTO | Red Hat
e: email@example.com | irc: fzdarsky@freenode | m: +49 175 82 11 64 4