Add notice about IONOS provider to README #175
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This adds a warning message to the README about development continuing on the IONOS Proxmox provider to help others avoid confusion between the two. Signed-off-by: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds a warning message to the README about development continuing on the IONOS Proxmox provider to help others avoid confusion between the two.
I spent a day going back and forth between docs trying to get the provider working. It wasn't until much later that I noticed the docs I was referring to were actually for two different repositories.
Reading the discussion and the activity in the K8s Slack channel, it would appear the decision is to focus on the IONOS hosted provider for now. If I misunderstood that, please let me know and I can change or abandon this PR. I think at a minimum there needs to be some sort of a warning to make sure readers understand the provider mentioned in the Cluster API docs is different than this provider.
There are some really nice features of this provider, so I hope those make it in to the other provider. Kudos on the nice work done with this provider.