Create multitenancy.md

[sergeyborovoy]

If the "What it is" section looks too verbose, the last 1 or even 2 paragraphs of it can be deleted, although I have re-read everything carefully and do believe that they provide important supplementary information that is not redundant.

I confirm that this is completely my own work, although in the world of term definitions you can always find fragments similar to each other even if they were developed independently.

Signed-off-by: Sergey Borovoy 48699431+sergeyborovoy@users.noreply.github.com

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for cncfglossary ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	be261b4
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/cncfglossary/deploys/63168a345cc42c000981d7cf
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1154--cncfglossary.netlify.app/multitenancy
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[sergeyborovoy]

The spellchecker says that multitenancy is not a word. Apparently, it prefers "multi-tenancy". Well, it's spelt without the dash in sources like Wikipedia, Gartner, RedHat, SAP, Google (https://cloud.google.com/datastore/docs/concepts/multitenancy) and many more. (Spelling with the dash is also common, which I pointed out in the article. )

I believe that the spellchecker should be overridden.

[seokho-son]

Hi @sergeyborovoy
You can add multitenancy (also related new words if necessary) in https://github.com/cncf/glossary/blob/main/wordlist.txt
The commit for updated wordlist.txt also can be included in this PR. :)

[sergeyborovoy]

Sorry I'm not a fluent github user so the best I could do was a new PR :)

[iamNoah1]

I'd say come to slack and we will help you update the wordlist in this PR as well. I guess it is better to have both in the same PR. What do you think @seokho-son, @jihoon-seo ?

[seokho-son]

Hi @iamNoah1 :)

it is better to have both in the same PR

I agree with you. But, since @sergeyborovoy already created a PR #1157 to update wordlist, let's proceed .. (#1157 needs to be merged in advance)

@sergeyborovoy when you define a new term next time, please try to add updated wordlist with in the same PR. :)

[jihoon-seo]

force-push: added the word multitenant to wordlist.txt, which is also needed to pass spellcheck but not covered in the PR #1157.

[CathPag]

This is great, @sergeyborovoy! I haven't finished reviewing yet but did the first section. I'm the editor reviewer and can't provide much feedback on technical accuracy, but it all sounds pretty accurate :)

Most of my requested changes are edits, but I also have one addition for clarification and feedback on the direction of the 2nd section. I'll get to the rest of it early next week.

[CathPag]

@sergeyborovoy, looks like you closed comments and completely ignored my edits. You can still accept them and change whatever you think I might have gotten wrong and start a conversation (explain why you disagree). But please don't simply disregard feedback from Glossary maintainers. There are some stylistic improvements I would rather not lose.

[seokho-son]

Hi @sergeyborovoy
I think you don't have to click Resolve conversation
unless you are completely sure that all folks involved in a review conversation are on the same page. (if a maintainer is involved, you'd better to wait until the maintainer agree with the result of a conversation. (because maintainers are highly responsible of all contents as well as the project itself)
I guess you are not familiar with Github and interactions in an opensource community yet. Please consider this is a learning curve.
Could you reopen closed conversations and re-initiate conversation ? (you can click Unresolve conversation button.

[sergeyborovoy]

Hi @CathPag, hi @seokho-son
My apologies, I guess was under the impression that by clicking "Resolve conversation", I tell github to merge the suggested changes. Like I said, I'm not a regular user of github.
I just unresolved everything and clicked "Sign off and committ suggestions" everywhere.

[CathPag]

@sergeyborovoy, I moved a lot of things around. The first section contained parts that should go into the last section. Also some edits for the other two sections I had not reviewed yet.

[CathPag]

Hi @CathPag, hi @seokho-son My apologies, I guess was under the impression that by clicking "Resolve conversation", I tell github to merge the suggested changes. Like I said, I'm not a regular user of github. I just unresolved everything and clicked "Sign off and committ suggestions" everywhere.

No worries. Glad to hear you were not totally ignoring me 😅

[CathPag]

@sergeyborovoy, just following up on this. I think it's pretty close! Would love to merge soon :)

[sergeyborovoy]

Hi @CathPag sorry about the delay, I've been traveling. Just signed off on your changes, thank you for your input!

[CathPag]

Thanks, @sergeyborovoy!

@iamNoah1, can you please review this PR?

[iamNoah1]

Thanks @sergeyborovoy I like the content :)

[jihoon-seo]

LGTM!

[CathPag]

Awesome, thanks for your contribution, @sergeyborovoy. Any chance I could interest you in helping with the stateless app definition?

[sergeyborovoy]

Hi @CathPag, I was about to respond with an enthusiastic "yes" but then I went to the GitHub issue page and saw that this article seems to have an (unusually?) painful history. I'd like to figure out why before I commit to it. I'm traveling right now but some time before the next wekend I hope to be able to carve out a free moment for this.

Should I delete the sergeyborovoy:patch-1 branch of Multitenancy?

[CathPag]

It's just not an easy term, and we need someone with a strong technical background to work on it. You seem to have one which is why I asked you :)

Yes, now that the term is merged, you can delete your branch.