Why change the name? defaultRequests is somewhat more consistent.

At the time, it bothered me that we were not consistent with the rest of the object.

For example, I thought if we have DefaultRequests, we should also have Defaults.

Since we have Default now, I thought DefaultRequest made sense.

Technically, Defaults should be DefaultLimits, or Defaults should be of type ResourceRequirements.

DefaultRequest is fine.

I agree on DefaultLimits, but did not want to make that change until v2
API.

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Brian Grant notifications@github.com wrote:

In docs/design/admission_control_limit_range.md
#12492 (comment)
:

@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ type LimitRangeItem struct {
Min ResourceList json:"min,omitempty" description:"min usage constraints on this kind by resource name"
// Default resource limits on this kind by resource name
Default ResourceList json:"default,omitempty" description:"default resource limits values on this kind by resource name if omitted"

• // DefaultRequests resource requests on this kind by resource name
• DefaultRequests ResourceList json:"defaultRequests,omitempty" description:"default resource requests values on this kind by resource name if omitted"
• // DefaultRequest resource requests on this kind by resource name
• DefaultRequest ResourceList json:"defaultRequest,omitempty" description:"default resource requests values on this kind by resource name if omitted"

Technically, Defaults should be DefaultLimits, or Defaults should be of
type ResourceRequirements.

DefaultRequest is fine.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/12492/files#r36936897.

Is there a doc to track v2 changes yet? I think Defaults as type
ResourceRequirements makes the most sense at that time.

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Derek Carr decarr@redhat.com wrote:

I agree on DefaultLimits, but did not want to make that change until v2
API.

On Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Brian Grant <notifications@github.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','notifications@github.com');> wrote:

In docs/design/admission_control_limit_range.md
#12492 (comment)
:

@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ type LimitRangeItem struct {
Min ResourceList json:"min,omitempty" description:"min usage constraints on this kind by resource name"
// Default resource limits on this kind by resource name
Default ResourceList json:"default,omitempty" description:"default resource limits values on this kind by resource name if omitted"

• // DefaultRequests resource requests on this kind by resource name
• DefaultRequests ResourceList json:"defaultRequests,omitempty" description:"default resource requests values on this kind by resource name if omitted"
• // DefaultRequest resource requests on this kind by resource name
• DefaultRequest ResourceList json:"defaultRequest,omitempty" description:"default resource requests values on this kind by resource name if omitted"

Technically, Defaults should be DefaultLimits, or Defaults should be of
type ResourceRequirements.

DefaultRequest is fine.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/12492/files#r36936897.

Agreed that it must be v2. #8190 is the umbrella issue.

I'm not going to fork any v2 APIs until API groups are ready.

s/if omitted/if resource request is omitted/

For LimitRequestRatio comment on next line it is clearer if you say "LimitRequestRatio is the maximum allows ratio of limit over request, representing the maximum burst for the named resource" or something like that. As-is, it's confusing.

I saw your discussion with @bgrant0607 later about not changing Default to DefaultLimit, but can you at least update the description of "default" above to "default resource limit values on this kind..." ? Or is that considered an API change?