Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 4, 2022. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@donbowman
Copy link
Contributor

Rationale: using NodePort, its simpler to remember kube-spawn-cluster-worker-1 than to do a machinectl and find the machine name which was used. The former is invariant across invocations.

Rationale: using NodePort, its simpler to remember
`kube-spawn-cluster-worker-1` than to do a machinectl and
find the machine name which was used. The former is invariant
across invocations.
@dongsupark
Copy link
Member

Hmm, I'm not sure about this.
I agree that it would be simpler to remember with human-readable strings. That was our original behavior, until we recently took the current approach. If we go back to the original behavior again, then we would lose uniqueness in the names.
Let me think.

@donbowman
Copy link
Contributor Author

donbowman commented Aug 30, 2018 via email

@donbowman
Copy link
Contributor Author

any comment on this?

@dongsupark
Copy link
Member

@donbowman Sorry. This PR slipped through my fingers.

How about making a command-line option for the different naming scheme, instead of changing the default one?
For example, --sequential-node-names.
If that option is given, we use the new human-readable naming scheme.
If not, we stay with the current randomized names.
Would it make sense?

@donbowman
Copy link
Contributor Author

I guess i don't understand what the random one achieves for anyone? Its no more unique.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants