On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:03 AM, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy@ferentschik.de> wrote:

I wanted to circle back to the roll-out of the profile feature.

I think we agreed that from a user point of view there should always be a profile.
So even if none is explicitly set or specified, a `minishift profile list` would report
that the 'default' profile is in use (or 'minishift' tbd).

Also from an implementation point of view there should always be a profile. The profile is
discovered and set in root.go at the beginning of the bootstrap. This avoids having code branches
based on profile existence at any other place than root.go.

The interesting question is, how profiles and in particular the default profile reflect on
the file system. There are two main approaches.

The first one is the one which is also taken by Minikube. The default profile uses the existing
structure (no profile sub-directory). The benefit would be that if one does not use profiles nothing
is going to change on a file system level. Everything will look the same. The other benefit is, that
it is truly backwards compatible and an existing VM and configuration is continue to work.

In this cases one would need to do a translation in root.go where the default profile would map

The downside is that once one uses profiles the structure is not completely consistent. The default
profile is not just another directory in the profiles directory.

The alternative is to make profiles consistent and also move the default profile into the profiles
sub-directory. This means existing Minsihfit setups will break. In our discussion we said that we
in this case can add something in root.go which allows the user to migrate at least config and cache
into the new default location. An existing VM would need to be delete, since files cannot just be moved.
Note, that we give the user not much of a choice. If the user wanted to keep the existing VM, he would
have to download an earlier version of Minishift. Thinking about semantic versioning, one could almost
argue that rolling out profiles would harbor a 2.0.0 release.

As much as I like consistency, I have to admit that the first option is growing on me. It allows us to roll
out profiles without having to add code for migration. If we really wanted, we could then clean up
the structure further down the track when we potentially have some other changes which are not backwards

Few things.

1. I would also like to keep the things consistent both in code and filesystem e.g. minishift profile list should print `minishift-default` if no profile is mentioned. The VM name should be also "minishift-default".

2.  We have features line addons and we have config.json which we want to keep separate for each instance/profile. Hence changing the layout where each instance have different directory structure would make sense to me. However minikube just uses one config.jason for all instances.

3. The new layout will be different hence we should do a 2.0.0 release. Which will be cleaner approach than try to fit in to the older filesystem layout.

4. If we plan to do a 2.0.0 release we need to fix some other things e.g. moving minishift openshift service to minishift service for aligning with minikube.


Minishift Mailing List mailing list -- minishift@lists.minishift.io
To unsubscribe send an email to minishift-leave@lists.minishift.io