-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
document automigration caveats and "host!" option #809
Comments
Note as per the linked issue, we should not call |
@hjoliver Suggest an alternative, or I'll stick with force. |
I did suggest an alternative - on the linked issue where we were discussing it. Summary: "Force condemn" doesn't make sense, and simply replacing the word "force" with something else isn't going to help much. That being the case we need to rethink how to describe the relevant concepts - which isn't difficult. "Condemned" means "sentenced to some future, typically negative, fate". A condemned host is going to be shut down (or whatever) soon, so we need we need to get the workflows off it. Such a host is condemned from the moment it is declared to be condemned, with no need for "forcing". It doesn't just become condemned later on, once the workflows have gone. The concepts we need to document are simply: Condemned hosts have been sentenced to death (figuratively speaking) so:
The two options for what to do with workflows on a condemned host already have perfectly good names: migrate and stop. I can't see any problem with simply documenting this as stated. (There's no actual config item called "force condemn" that we have to think of a name for.) |
Not particularly interested in the debate, just need a name you're happy with.
Ok, will use "migrate mode" and "stop mode". |
Me neither - but we have to give reasons for why something should be changed. Then, it's only a debate if someone else disagrees with those reasons (or the conclusions that follow from them). |
Turns out this fas already well documented, I just didn't look very hard. |
From cylc/cylc-flow#6623 (comment) -
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: