On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:59:48AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:57:48PM +1100, Justin Clift wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > No, not really. This is a completely different scenario. You haven't got two > > > fundamentally different concepts here, this is just a Xen vs KVM vs VMWare > > > scenario where you've just got different impls of the same concept. > > > > > >> So, I still reckon we should go ahead with this. :) > > > > > > I don't agree. > > > > Heh, ok. What's the better approach for this? Should we adjust to use > > something else like "guest" generically instead, or leave it as is, or ? > > We should at least be consistent in what we use in virsh output. The > command names are all 'dom-' and the libvirt API is virDomain*, so > I've got a slight preference for domain, but guest works too. I agree that we should be consistent. My $.02 is that guest is the most cross technology term, so I vote for that, but I think standardization is the most important thing. Dave -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list