Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 12:59:16PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873344 suggested that >> the grouping 'boot', 'shutdown', 'reboot'; as well as the grouping >> 'start', 'stop', 'restart'; might be easier to remember than the >> current mix of 'start', 'shutdown', 'reboot'. >> >> * tools/virsh-domain.c (domManagementCmds): Add other command names. >> * tools/virsh.pod (start, shutdown, reboot): Document the aliases. >> --- >> >> This patch documents both spellings. An alternative would be to >> leave the alternate spellings as hidden aliases (virsh has support >> for that), but still mention them in virsh.pod (see how we did an >> alias for nodedev-dettach, for reference). >> > > NACK to this patch. I think the current command names are good. > Creating duplicates will make life worse. First, it creates > divergance from the similarly named commands for networks, > storage and other objects. Hmm, that is a very good observation, one I hadn't considered. Agreed that consistency with other commands is certainly important, where 'booting' a network e.g. is not very intuitive. Regards, Jim > It also means scripts written again > the new commands will not work with existing libvirt. > > I actually think that shutdown & reboot are *better* names > than restart and stop. > > If we wanted to replace any existing names, then the 'create' > and 'destroy' names are the ones to replace, and for those I > would expect to use 'boot' and 'stop'. I still don't thin > we should do that either, due to creating inconsistency with > other commands. > > Daniel > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list