Yep seems like table stakes.

I agree in principle. A problem is this means that persistent resource names (e.g the disk) cannot be named based on the workspace name. Perhaps that's an anti-pattern anyways.

Definitely an anti-pattern to link them that way. Naming them that way isn't terrible because we need to name them something, but we shouldn't attach semantics.

Definitely an anti-pattern to link them that way. Naming them that way isn't terrible because we need to name them something, but we shouldn't attach semantics.

In GCP at least, a disk's name is its ID. There is no way to rename a disk, except by light copying it via snapshot.

I think no matter what we're going to have to treat persistent-across-builds resources differently from throw-away-and-start-over resources. If that means different naming conventions, okay; it just goes on the pile of other things we'll need to manage differently.

@misskniss earmarking for next sprint

@tjcran I see this was marked for a sprint but what happened to this issue? It's a pretty big PITA to build up a workspace and then have to recreate it since the name is a bit off. Like, I don't want to actually keep my workspace named donkus...

Duplicates #3000 closing this one in favor of that one which has more detail