On 05/09/16 19:48, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 05:37:07PM +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> after my presentation at KVM Forum, it was pointed out from the audience >> that we might think about doing something about the naming of the >> virt-admin's comands, since there is some sort of inconsistency: srv- >> vs. client- vs. dmn- (not merged yet). When I sent patches to upstream I >> already knew that the naming was not optimal, but I didn't come up with >> anything better so I hoped that the reviewer might think of something >> better which unfortunately did not happen. >> >> Anyway, there are multiple options how this can be approached but I'm >> not 100% satisfied with neither of them: >> >> 1) rename the commands completely >> Although clean, obviously this is the non-preferred option because this >> would break any backwards compatibility however, I think there is a fair >> chance that people haven't actually started using it yet (although that >> might change between 7.3 and 7.4). >> >> 2) create aliases for non-abbreviated forms of the commands >> That way, srv- would become server- and dmn- would become daemon-. >> However, by doing this we'll end up with 6 almost identical entries in >> the commands structure which might be error-prone once we decide to >> add/create&add a flag to the command primitive, since the flag would >> have to be added both to the alias and to the original (unlikely, but >> possible that someone might forget about that) >> >> 3) abbreviate client- to something like clnt- >> Identical to the above except for the amount of duplicate entries which >> would be reduced to 2 >> >> 4) leave it as is if such a consensus is reached and accepted >> I guess this does no need any additional comments. > > I just vote for 4. > > In retrospect it would have been nice to use 'server' instead of > 'srv', but ultimately it isn't a functional problem. The "solutions" > create extra code and/or inconsitency and/or break back-compat so just > aren't worth it IMHO. > Yeah, for me personally, it was either number 2 or 4 but as you write, both of them suck in their own way and I just could not decide which one sucked less. Thanks for opinions guys, appreciated :) Erik > IOW, admit 'srv' sucks but don't change it, and ensure new server > commands continue to use 'srv' for consistency. > > We can of couse use 'daemon-' as prefix for new commands, since we > have not yet released any versions using 'dmn-' as prefix > > > Regards, > Daniel > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list