> On Feb 11, 2022, at 3:16 PM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11 Feb 2022, at 15:00, Chuck Lever III wrote: > >>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 2:30 PM, Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> All the arguments for exacting tolerances on how it should be named apply >>> equally well to anything that implies its output will be used for nfs client >>> ids, or host ids. >> >> I completely disagree with this assessment. > > But how, and in what way? The tool just generates uuids, and spits them > out, or it spits out whatever's in the file you specify, up to 64 chars. If > we can't have uuid in the name, how can we have NFS or machine-id or > host-id? We don't have a tool called "string" to get and set the DNS name of the local host. It's called "hostname". The purpose of the proposed tool is to persist a unique string to be used as part of an NFS client ID. I would like to name the tool based on that purpose, not based on the way the content of the persistent file happens to be arranged some of the time. When the tool generates the string, it just happens to be a UUID. It doesn't have to be. The tool could generate a digest of the boot time or the current time. In fact, one of those is usually part of certain types of a UUID anyway. The fact that it is a UUID is totally not relevant. We happen to use a UUID because it has certain global uniqueness properties. (By the way, perhaps the man page could mention that global uniqueness is important for this identifier. Anything with similar guaranteed global uniqueness could be used). You keep admitting that the tool can output something that isn't a UUID. Doesn't that make my argument for me: that the tool doesn't generate a UUID, it manages a persistent host identifier. Just like "hostname." Therefore "nfshostid". I really don't see how nfshostid is just as miserable as nfsuuid -- hence, I completely disagree that "all arguments ... apply equally well". In fairness, I'm trying to understand why you want to stick with "nfsuuid". You originally said you wanted a generic tool. OK, but now you say you don't have other uses for the tool after all. You said you don't want it to be associated with an NFS client ID. That part I still don't grok. Can you help me understand? >> I object strongly to the name nfsuuid, and you seem to be inflexible. This >> is not a hill I want to die on, however I reserve the right to say "I told >> you so" when it turns out to be a poor choice. > > How does agreeing with you multiple times in my last response and making > further suggestions for names seem inflexible to you? This is the worst > part of working over email - I think you're misreading my good humor in the > face of a drudging discussion as sarcasm or ill will. Nope, not at all. It wasn't apparent that you agreed, as much of your reply seemed to be disagreeing with my reply. So maybe I am overreacting. Though my reply can also be read with humor, even though it is a bit dry. -- Chuck Lever
