Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 22, 2024. It is now read-only.

Update README to v2.0.0 #257

Merged
merged 9 commits into from
Dec 5, 2018
Merged

Conversation

shay-berman
Copy link
Contributor

@shay-berman shay-berman commented Nov 25, 2018

Align README file with version 2

  • adding scale support
  • fix some syntax in md file
  • improve the scale md file with up to date examples by @deeghuge

related also to -> IBM/ubiquity#269


This change is Reviewable

Add Spectrum Scale support into the README
@shay-berman shay-berman self-assigned this Nov 25, 2018
shay-berman added a commit to IBM/ubiquity that referenced this pull request Nov 25, 2018
@shay-berman shay-berman changed the title Feature/align readme to version2 Update README to v2.0.0 Nov 25, 2018
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shay-berman shay-berman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @deeghuge and @dima-i)


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 43 at r2 (raw file):

  name: "pvc1"
  annotations:
    volume.beta.kubernetes.io/storage-class: "spectrumscale-primaryfs"

@deepak
please do not use this old annotation for storage class.
use storageClassName in the pvc spec instead.


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 46 at r2 (raw file):

spec:
  accessModes:
    - ReadWriteOnce # Ubiquity spectrum-scale backend supports ReadWriteOnce and ReadWriteMany mode.

why u r not showing RWmany? which is more scale orientated. up to you


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 141 at r2 (raw file):

#> cat storage-class-primaryfs.yml
kind: StorageClass
apiVersion: storage.k8s.io/v1beta1

please do not use beta (also in other places here)
check the helm storage class which is already aligned with it


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 287 at r2 (raw file):

```bash
#> cat deployment1.yml
apiVersion: "extensions/v1beta1"

dont use beta

Copy link
Member

@deeghuge deeghuge left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reviewable status: 0 of 3 files reviewed, 4 unresolved discussions (waiting on @shay-berman, @deeghuge, and @dima-i)


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 43 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shay-berman wrote…

@deepak
please do not use this old annotation for storage class.
use storageClassName in the pvc spec instead.

Done


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 46 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shay-berman wrote…

why u r not showing RWmany? which is more scale orientated. up to you

We are still looking for right usecase to show the RWM functionality with scale. As of now we dont have proper usecase to show this functionality. So for now we will keep these example and if in future we came up with good usecase we will add it.


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 141 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shay-berman wrote…

please do not use beta (also in other places here)
check the helm storage class which is already aligned with it

done


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 287 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, shay-berman wrote…

dont use beta

done

Copy link
Contributor Author

@shay-berman shay-berman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hi Deepak, your changes :lgtm:
Lets wait for Dima\Samuel approval and also for the new link to fix central before I will merge it to dev.

But please review it and provide your l-g-t-m if u think its ok

Reviewed 1 of 2 files at r1, 1 of 2 files at r2, 1 of 1 files at r3.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @shay-berman and @dima-i)


ibm-spectrum-scale.md, line 287 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, deeghuge (Deepak Ghuge) wrote…

done

its better to use
apiVersion: apps/v1

rather then extensions. check me out. and align it with what you think its better.

Apply Samuel comments and new URL to fix central
Copy link
Contributor Author

@shay-berman shay-berman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r4.
Reviewable status: :shipit: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @dima-i)

@shay-berman
Copy link
Contributor Author

I hope that this is the last merge to dev for v2.0.0
:-)

@shay-berman shay-berman merged commit d6ff33c into dev Dec 5, 2018
This was referenced Dec 5, 2018
@shay-berman shay-berman deleted the feature/align_readme_to_version2 branch December 19, 2018 10:22
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants