1:59 p.m.
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).
tools/virsh-domain.c | 3 +++
tools/virsh.pod | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
index 393b67b..86ed4d3 100644
--- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
@@ -8298,6 +8298,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"blockjob", cmdBlockJob, opts_block_job, info_block_job, 0},
{"blockpull", cmdBlockPull, opts_block_pull, info_block_pull, 0},
{"blockresize", cmdBlockResize, opts_block_resize, info_block_resize, 0},
+ {"boot", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
{"change-media", cmdChangeMedia, opts_change_media, info_change_media, 0},
#ifndef WIN32
{"console", cmdConsole, opts_console, info_console, 0},
@@ -8351,6 +8352,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"numatune", cmdNumatune, opts_numatune, info_numatune, 0},
{"reboot", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
{"reset", cmdReset, opts_reset, info_reset, 0},
+ {"restart", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
{"restore", cmdRestore, opts_restore, info_restore, 0},
{"resume", cmdResume, opts_resume, info_resume, 0},
{"save", cmdSave, opts_save, info_save, 0},
@@ -8367,6 +8369,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"setvcpus", cmdSetvcpus, opts_setvcpus, info_setvcpus, 0},
{"shutdown", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
{"start", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
+ {"stop", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
{"suspend", cmdSuspend, opts_suspend, info_suspend, 0},
{"ttyconsole", cmdTTYConsole, opts_ttyconsole, info_ttyconsole, 0},
{"undefine", cmdUndefine, opts_undefine, info_undefine, 0},
diff --git a/tools/virsh.pod b/tools/virsh.pod
index e0c6b42..7a3835b 100644
--- a/tools/virsh.pod
+++ b/tools/virsh.pod
@@ -1124,6 +1124,7 @@ If I<--config> is specified, affect the next boot of a
persistent guest.
If I<--current> is specified, affect the current guest state.
=item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had the B<reboot>
command run from the console. The command returns as soon as it has
@@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is booted. As such, it must
only be
used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
=item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Gracefully shuts down a domain. This coordinates with the domain OS
to perform graceful shutdown, so there is no guarantee that it will
@@ -1543,6 +1545,8 @@ can specify C<acpi> or C<agent>.
=item B<start> I<domain-name-or-uuid> [I<--console>]
[I<--paused>]
[I<--autodestroy>] [I<--bypass-cache>] [I<--force-boot>]
+=item B<boot> I<domain-name-or-uuid> [I<--console>]
[I<--paused>]
+[I<--autodestroy>] [I<--bypass-cache>] [I<--force-boot>]
Start a (previously defined) inactive domain, either from the last
B<managedsave> state, or via a fresh boot if no managedsave state is
--
1.7.11.7
2:05 p.m.
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).
I don't see any reason to hide them; as long as we're being backward
compatible, I think we're doing the right thing, and we should let
people know that these options exist.
Dave
tools/virsh-domain.c | 3 +++
tools/virsh.pod | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
index 393b67b..86ed4d3 100644
--- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
@@ -8298,6 +8298,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"blockjob", cmdBlockJob, opts_block_job, info_block_job, 0},
{"blockpull", cmdBlockPull, opts_block_pull, info_block_pull, 0},
{"blockresize", cmdBlockResize, opts_block_resize, info_block_resize, 0},
+ {"boot", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
{"change-media", cmdChangeMedia, opts_change_media, info_change_media,
0},
#ifndef WIN32
{"console", cmdConsole, opts_console, info_console, 0},
@@ -8351,6 +8352,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"numatune", cmdNumatune, opts_numatune, info_numatune, 0},
{"reboot", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
{"reset", cmdReset, opts_reset, info_reset, 0},
+ {"restart", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
{"restore", cmdRestore, opts_restore, info_restore, 0},
{"resume", cmdResume, opts_resume, info_resume, 0},
{"save", cmdSave, opts_save, info_save, 0},
@@ -8367,6 +8369,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"setvcpus", cmdSetvcpus, opts_setvcpus, info_setvcpus, 0},
{"shutdown", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
{"start", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
+ {"stop", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
{"suspend", cmdSuspend, opts_suspend, info_suspend, 0},
{"ttyconsole", cmdTTYConsole, opts_ttyconsole, info_ttyconsole, 0},
{"undefine", cmdUndefine, opts_undefine, info_undefine, 0},
diff --git a/tools/virsh.pod b/tools/virsh.pod
index e0c6b42..7a3835b 100644
--- a/tools/virsh.pod
+++ b/tools/virsh.pod
@@ -1124,6 +1124,7 @@ If I<--config> is specified, affect the next boot of a
persistent guest.
If I<--current> is specified, affect the current guest state.
=item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had the B<reboot>
command run from the console. The command returns as soon as it has
@@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is booted. As such, it
must only be
used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
=item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Gracefully shuts down a domain. This coordinates with the domain OS
to perform graceful shutdown, so there is no guarantee that it will
@@ -1543,6 +1545,8 @@ can specify C<acpi> or C<agent>.
=item B<start> I<domain-name-or-uuid> [I<--console>]
[I<--paused>]
[I<--autodestroy>] [I<--bypass-cache>] [I<--force-boot>]
+=item B<boot> I<domain-name-or-uuid> [I<--console>]
[I<--paused>]
+[I<--autodestroy>] [I<--bypass-cache>] [I<--force-boot>]
Start a (previously defined) inactive domain, either from the last
B<managedsave> state, or via a fresh boot if no managedsave state is
--
1.7.11.7
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
4:53 p.m.
On 11/05/12 20:59, 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).
I agree with Dave, we should have these visible.
tools/virsh-domain.c | 3 +++
tools/virsh.pod | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
index 393b67b..86ed4d3 100644
--- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
@@ -8298,6 +8298,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"blockjob", cmdBlockJob, opts_block_job, info_block_job, 0},
{"blockpull", cmdBlockPull, opts_block_pull, info_block_pull, 0},
{"blockresize", cmdBlockResize, opts_block_resize, info_block_resize,
0},
+ {"boot", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
Hm, the boot command is a little bit awkward. But let's have it for the
sake of consistence.
{"change-media", cmdChangeMedia, opts_change_media,
info_change_media, 0},
#ifndef WIN32
{"console", cmdConsole, opts_console, info_console, 0},
@@ -8351,6 +8352,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"numatune", cmdNumatune, opts_numatune, info_numatune, 0},
{"reboot", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
{"reset", cmdReset, opts_reset, info_reset, 0},
+ {"restart", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
{"restore", cmdRestore, opts_restore, info_restore, 0},
{"resume", cmdResume, opts_resume, info_resume, 0},
{"save", cmdSave, opts_save, info_save, 0},
@@ -8367,6 +8369,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
{"setvcpus", cmdSetvcpus, opts_setvcpus, info_setvcpus, 0},
{"shutdown", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
{"start", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
+ {"stop", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
{"suspend", cmdSuspend, opts_suspend, info_suspend, 0},
{"ttyconsole", cmdTTYConsole, opts_ttyconsole, info_ttyconsole, 0},
{"undefine", cmdUndefine, opts_undefine, info_undefine, 0},
ACK to the code changes, but I'm not 100% convinced if this is
necessary. OTOH these changes are really trivial and some of those
command names are awkward in the current state so if nobody speaks
against in a reasonable amount of time, let's push it then.
Peter
4:57 p.m.
On 11/05/2012 03:53 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 11/05/12 20:59, 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).
I agree with Dave, we should have these visible.
>
> tools/virsh-domain.c | 3 +++
> tools/virsh.pod | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
> index 393b67b..86ed4d3 100644
> --- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
> +++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
> @@ -8298,6 +8298,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
> {"blockjob", cmdBlockJob, opts_block_job, info_block_job, 0},
> {"blockpull", cmdBlockPull, opts_block_pull, info_block_pull, 0},
> {"blockresize", cmdBlockResize, opts_block_resize,
> info_block_resize, 0},
> + {"boot", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
Hm, the boot command is a little bit awkward. But let's have it for the
sake of consistence.
> {"change-media", cmdChangeMedia, opts_change_media,
> info_change_media, 0},
> #ifndef WIN32
> {"console", cmdConsole, opts_console, info_console, 0},
> @@ -8351,6 +8352,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
> {"numatune", cmdNumatune, opts_numatune, info_numatune, 0},
> {"reboot", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
> {"reset", cmdReset, opts_reset, info_reset, 0},
> + {"restart", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
> {"restore", cmdRestore, opts_restore, info_restore, 0},
> {"resume", cmdResume, opts_resume, info_resume, 0},
> {"save", cmdSave, opts_save, info_save, 0},
> @@ -8367,6 +8369,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
> {"setvcpus", cmdSetvcpus, opts_setvcpus, info_setvcpus, 0},
> {"shutdown", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
> {"start", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
> + {"stop", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
> {"suspend", cmdSuspend, opts_suspend, info_suspend, 0},
> {"ttyconsole", cmdTTYConsole, opts_ttyconsole, info_ttyconsole, 0},
> {"undefine", cmdUndefine, opts_undefine, info_undefine, 0},
ACK to the code changes, but I'm not 100% convinced if this is
necessary. OTOH these changes are really trivial and some of those
command names are awkward in the current state so if nobody speaks
against in a reasonable amount of time, let's push it then.
Okay, I'll wait 48 hours or so, then push if no one speaks to the contrary.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
5:12 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/05/2012 03:53 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On 11/05/12 20:59, 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).
>
> I agree with Dave, we should have these visible.
>
>>
>> tools/virsh-domain.c | 3 +++
>> tools/virsh.pod | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
>> index 393b67b..86ed4d3 100644
>> --- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
>> +++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
>> @@ -8298,6 +8298,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
>> {"blockjob", cmdBlockJob, opts_block_job, info_block_job, 0},
>> {"blockpull", cmdBlockPull, opts_block_pull, info_block_pull,
0},
>> {"blockresize", cmdBlockResize, opts_block_resize,
>> info_block_resize, 0},
>> + {"boot", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
>
> Hm, the boot command is a little bit awkward. But let's have it for the
> sake of consistence.
>
>> {"change-media", cmdChangeMedia, opts_change_media,
>> info_change_media, 0},
>> #ifndef WIN32
>> {"console", cmdConsole, opts_console, info_console, 0},
>> @@ -8351,6 +8352,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
>> {"numatune", cmdNumatune, opts_numatune, info_numatune, 0},
>> {"reboot", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
>> {"reset", cmdReset, opts_reset, info_reset, 0},
>> + {"restart", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
>> {"restore", cmdRestore, opts_restore, info_restore, 0},
>> {"resume", cmdResume, opts_resume, info_resume, 0},
>> {"save", cmdSave, opts_save, info_save, 0},
>> @@ -8367,6 +8369,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
>> {"setvcpus", cmdSetvcpus, opts_setvcpus, info_setvcpus, 0},
>> {"shutdown", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
>> {"start", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
>> + {"stop", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
>> {"suspend", cmdSuspend, opts_suspend, info_suspend, 0},
>> {"ttyconsole", cmdTTYConsole, opts_ttyconsole, info_ttyconsole,
0},
>> {"undefine", cmdUndefine, opts_undefine, info_undefine, 0},
>
> ACK to the code changes, but I'm not 100% convinced if this is
> necessary. OTOH these changes are really trivial and some of those
> command names are awkward in the current state so if nobody speaks
> against in a reasonable amount of time, let's push it then.
Okay, I'll wait 48 hours or so, then push if no one speaks to the contrary.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
Honestly the patch seems reasonable to me and after reading the
bugzilla request it seems reasonable as well. Sometimes our job is to
make things easier on users, I'd say this is one of those times.
So +1 for it.
--
Doug Goldstein
8:38 p.m.
Doug Goldstein wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 03:53 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>
>> On 11/05/12 20:59, 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).
>>>
>> I agree with Dave, we should have these visible.
>>
>>
>>> tools/virsh-domain.c | 3 +++
>>> tools/virsh.pod | 4 ++++
>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
>>> index 393b67b..86ed4d3 100644
>>> --- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
>>> +++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
>>> @@ -8298,6 +8298,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
>>> {"blockjob", cmdBlockJob, opts_block_job, info_block_job,
0},
>>> {"blockpull", cmdBlockPull, opts_block_pull, info_block_pull,
0},
>>> {"blockresize", cmdBlockResize, opts_block_resize,
>>> info_block_resize, 0},
>>> + {"boot", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
>>>
>> Hm, the boot command is a little bit awkward. But let's have it for the
>> sake of consistence.
>>
>>
>>> {"change-media", cmdChangeMedia, opts_change_media,
>>> info_change_media, 0},
>>> #ifndef WIN32
>>> {"console", cmdConsole, opts_console, info_console, 0},
>>> @@ -8351,6 +8352,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
>>> {"numatune", cmdNumatune, opts_numatune, info_numatune, 0},
>>> {"reboot", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
>>> {"reset", cmdReset, opts_reset, info_reset, 0},
>>> + {"restart", cmdReboot, opts_reboot, info_reboot, 0},
>>> {"restore", cmdRestore, opts_restore, info_restore, 0},
>>> {"resume", cmdResume, opts_resume, info_resume, 0},
>>> {"save", cmdSave, opts_save, info_save, 0},
>>> @@ -8367,6 +8369,7 @@ const vshCmdDef domManagementCmds[] = {
>>> {"setvcpus", cmdSetvcpus, opts_setvcpus, info_setvcpus, 0},
>>> {"shutdown", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
>>> {"start", cmdStart, opts_start, info_start, 0},
>>> + {"stop", cmdShutdown, opts_shutdown, info_shutdown, 0},
>>> {"suspend", cmdSuspend, opts_suspend, info_suspend, 0},
>>> {"ttyconsole", cmdTTYConsole, opts_ttyconsole,
info_ttyconsole, 0},
>>> {"undefine", cmdUndefine, opts_undefine, info_undefine, 0},
>>>
>> ACK to the code changes, but I'm not 100% convinced if this is
>> necessary. OTOH these changes are really trivial and some of those
>> command names are awkward in the current state so if nobody speaks
>> against in a reasonable amount of time, let's push it then.
>>
> Okay, I'll wait 48 hours or so, then push if no one speaks to the contrary.
>
> --
> Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
> Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
>
>
Honestly the patch seems reasonable to me and after reading the
bugzilla request it seems reasonable as well. Sometimes our job is to
make things easier on users, I'd say this is one of those times.
Agreed.
Coincidently, having played with OpenStack for a bit now, I recently
typed 'virsh boot' :).
So +1 for it.
+1
Regards,
Jim
2:30 a.m.
On 11/05/2012 08:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
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).
In my opinion start, stop, restart is
better than the mix before and
semantically more accurate than boot, shutdown, reboot. The latter uses
terms that apply to the operating system inside the domain rather than
the domain (virtual machine) itself.
So I would even go so far to mark the latter group as legacy and
recommend the usage of the former.
=item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had the B<reboot>
command run from the console. The command returns as soon as it has
Now it would
be a good time to correct the documentation. In reality the
restart/reboot is a combination of stop/shutdown followed by an in-place
reset of the domain (at least for QEMU/KVM). Which can behave the same
as a reboot but doesn't have to. This is one area of confusion for users
I have observed. Restart seems to raise a lower expectation level ;-).
For that reason I would also vote to exchange the order of appearance
(restart first).
@@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is
booted. As such, it must only be
used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
=item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
+=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Same suggestion: first line stop, second shutdown.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind Regards
Viktor Mihajlovski
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
3:01 a.m.
On 11/06/12 09:30, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
Giving the number of voices wanting this, I don't object any more.
Peter
On 11/05/2012 08:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> 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).
In my opinion start, stop, restart is better than the mix before and
semantically more accurate than boot, shutdown, reboot. The latter uses
terms that apply to the operating system inside the domain rather than
the domain (virtual machine) itself.
So I would even go so far to mark the latter group as legacy and
recommend the usage of the former.
> =item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode
acpi|agent>]
> +=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
> Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had
the B<reboot > command run from the console.
The command returns as soon as it has
Now it would be a good time to correct the documentation. In reality the
restart/reboot is a combination of stop/shutdown followed by an in-place
reset of the domain (at least for QEMU/KVM). Which can behave the same
as a reboot but doesn't have to. This is one area of confusion for users
I have observed. Restart seems to raise a lower expectation level ;-).
For that reason I would also vote to exchange the order of appearance
(restart first).
I agree on this point.
> @@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is
> booted. As such, it must only be
> used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
> =item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode
acpi|agent>]
> +=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
Same suggestion: first line stop, second shutdown.
But here I think stop is less appropriate. For me stop sounds
semantically more like what destroy does.
9:04 a.m.
On 11/06/2012 02:01 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> =item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode
acpi|agent>]
>> +=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
>>
>> Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had the B<reboot>
>> command run from the console. The command returns as soon as it has
> Now it would be a good time to correct the documentation. In reality the
> restart/reboot is a combination of stop/shutdown followed by an in-place
> reset of the domain (at least for QEMU/KVM). Which can behave the same
> as a reboot but doesn't have to. This is one area of confusion for users
> I have observed. Restart seems to raise a lower expectation level ;-).
> For that reason I would also vote to exchange the order of appearance
> (restart first).
I agree on this point.
I'm not going to switch the order of the synopsis (the older command
should be listed first, since that is the more portable version if you
are coding for older virsh); but I do agree that the help text needs
improvement (it is NOT the same as 'reboot' from within the guest).
This is what I squashed in before pushing:
diff --git i/tools/virsh.pod w/tools/virsh.pod
index 7a3835b..7a46ffd 100644
--- i/tools/virsh.pod
+++ w/tools/virsh.pod
@@ -1126,10 +1126,12 @@ If I<--current> is specified, affect the current
guest state.
=item B<reboot> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
=item B<restart> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
-Reboot a domain. This acts just as if the domain had the B<reboot>
-command run from the console. The command returns as soon as it has
-executed the reboot action, which may be significantly before the
-domain actually reboots.
+Restart a domain. Depending on the hypervisor, this may request a
+shutdown followed by a fresh boot, rather than triggering a software
+reboot. The command returns as soon as it has requested the reboot
+action, and depending on the guest, there may be a significant delay
+before the domain actually reboots, or the request might even be
+ignored.
The exact behavior of a domain when it reboots is set by the
I<on_reboot> parameter in the domain's XML definition.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
8:31 a.m.
On 11/06/2012 03:30 AM, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
On 11/05/2012 08:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> @@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is
> booted. As such, it must only be
> used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
>
> =item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
> +=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
>
Same suggestion: first line stop, second shutdown.
And one final thing I didn't notice if anybody had mentioned yet (and
don't have time to look for now, since I'm off to wait in line to vote):
it's *very* important that every mention of the "old" verbs note that it
is a deprecated synonym for the new verb (or at least that it's a
synonym). We don't want people thinking that there are two different
commands because they are slightly different in behavior, then getting
confused about which to use.
9:09 a.m.
On 11/06/2012 07:31 AM, Laine Stump wrote:
On 11/06/2012 03:30 AM, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 08:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> @@ -1523,6 +1524,7 @@ be hot-plugged the next time the domain is
>> booted. As such, it must only be
>> used with the I<--config> flag, and not with the I<--live> flag.
>>
>> =item B<shutdown> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
>> +=item B<stop> I<domain> [I<--mode acpi|agent>]
>>
> Same suggestion: first line stop, second shutdown.
>
>
And one final thing I didn't notice if anybody had mentioned yet (and
don't have time to look for now, since I'm off to wait in line to vote):
it's *very* important that every mention of the "old" verbs note that it
is a deprecated synonym for the new verb (or at least that it's a
synonym). We don't want people thinking that there are two different
commands because they are slightly different in behavior, then getting
confused about which to use.
Oops, just pushed before seeing this mail; I'll add this as a followup
patch:
diff --git i/tools/virsh.pod w/tools/virsh.pod
index 7a46ffd..d507455 100644
--- i/tools/virsh.pod
+++ w/tools/virsh.pod
@@ -1140,6 +1140,8 @@ By default the hypervisor will try to pick a
suitable shutdown
method. To specify an alternative method, the I<--mode> parameter
can specify C<acpi> or C<agent>.
+The command B<restart> is an alias for the older B<reboot>.
+
=item B<reset> I<domain>
Reset a domain immediately without any guest shutdown. B<reset>
@@ -1545,6 +1547,8 @@ By default the hypervisor will try to pick a
suitable shutdown
method. To specify an alternative method, the I<--mode> parameter
can specify C<acpi> or C<agent>.
+The command B<stop> is an alias for the older B<shutdown>.
+
=item B<start> I<domain-name-or-uuid> [I<--console>]
[I<--paused>]
[I<--autodestroy>] [I<--bypass-cache>] [I<--force-boot>]
=item B<boot> I<domain-name-or-uuid> [I<--console>]
[I<--paused>]
@@ -1562,6 +1566,8 @@ the restore will avoid the file system cache,
although this may slow
down the operation. If I<--force-boot> is specified, then any
managedsave state is discarded and a fresh boot occurs.
+The command B<boot> is an alias for the older B<start>.
+
=item B<suspend> I<domain>
Suspend a running domain. It is kept in memory but won't be scheduled
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
8:25 a.m.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:30:15AM +0100, Viktor Mihajlovski wrote:
On 11/05/2012 08:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>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).
In my opinion start, stop, restart is better than the mix before and
semantically more accurate than boot, shutdown, reboot. The latter
uses terms that apply to the operating system inside the domain
rather than the domain (virtual machine) itself.
The 'shutdown' and 'reboot' commands use terms that apply to the
operating system, because they *are* controlling the operating
system, not the virtual machine. They directly result in the
guest OS commands 'shutdown' and 'reboot' being invoked.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
9:37 a.m.
On 11/08/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
The 'shutdown' and 'reboot' commands use terms that apply to the
operating system, because they *are* controlling the operating
system, not the virtual machine. They directly result in the
guest OS commands 'shutdown' and 'reboot' being invoked.
At least for QEMU this is only true for agent mode. Otherwise (default)
both virsh shutdown and virsh reboot are the same from the OS
perspective, namely a system powerdown request and will typically
result in the shutdown script to be run.
That's what can confuse users without insight to libvirt code.
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Kind Regards
Viktor Mihajlovski
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
8:24 a.m.
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. 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
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
9:30 a.m.
On Thu, November 8, 2012 09:24, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
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. It also means scripts written again
the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
Duplicates (aliases) will make life worse for whom? In what way? On
what evidence? The present nomenclature is idiomatic to virsh and is
a variance with how many people think of managing a host whether
virtual or not. On the other hand, one does not customarily speak of
rebooting a network or a storage array, at least not in my experience.
I actually think that shutdown & reboot are *better* names
than restart and stop.
Then change start to boot and be done with it. But, the issue really
is what English words are commonly associated with each other in the
context we are dealing with. I submit that 'start' is not intuitively
associated with 'shutdown' by the vast majority of English speakers
and hardly associated with 'reboot' by any.
Consider the syntax of 'initctl' and 'service'. Initctl uses start,
stop and restart. Service scripts virtually without exception use
start, stop and restart, including that for libvirtd. Operators are
far more likely to be familiar with this combination of terms than any
other. Why force them to learn yet one more variant? What is the
advantage for the users?
.
--
*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
10:21 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:30:55AM -0500, James B. Byrne wrote:
On Thu, November 8, 2012 09:24, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> 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. It also means scripts written again
> the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
Duplicates (aliases) will make life worse for whom? In what way? On
what evidence? The present nomenclature is idiomatic to virsh and is
a variance with how many people think of managing a host whether
virtual or not. On the other hand, one does not customarily speak of
rebooting a network or a storage array, at least not in my experience.
>
> I actually think that shutdown & reboot are *better* names
> than restart and stop.
Then change start to boot and be done with it. But, the issue really
is what English words are commonly associated with each other in the
context we are dealing with. I submit that 'start' is not intuitively
associated with 'shutdown' by the vast majority of English speakers
and hardly associated with 'reboot' by any.
Consider the syntax of 'initctl' and 'service'. Initctl uses start,
stop and restart. Service scripts virtually without exception use
start, stop and restart, including that for libvirtd. Operators are
far more likely to be familiar with this combination of terms than any
other. Why force them to learn yet one more variant? What is the
advantage for the users?
If you are comparing to init services, then the 'stop' verb is semanticaly
equivalent to libvirt's 'destory' verb, not the shutdown verb. 'stop'
does a synchronous termination of the service.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
9:51 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:07PM +0100, 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. 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.
IMO this is fundamentally an aesthetic question here that's not going
to be solved by debate, however, from the comments so far, the patch
seems to have a fair amount of support. DV, perhaps you could weigh
in with your opinion?
Dave
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
10:24 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:51:14AM -0500, Dave Allan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:07PM +0100, 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. 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.
IMO this is fundamentally an aesthetic question here that's not going
to be solved by debate, however, from the comments so far, the patch
seems to have a fair amount of support. DV, perhaps you could weigh
in with your opinion?
Since this is an aesthetic question, even adding this patch is not going
to solve it. It is a fact of life that there are a huge variety of names
that could be used - adding more & more aliases is not a solution. You
can never satisfy everyone's desired name choice. You just have to pick
one name and stick with it consistently.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
11:39 a.m.
On 11/08/2012 11:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 10:51:14AM -0500, Dave Allan wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:07PM +0100, 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. 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.
> IMO this is fundamentally an aesthetic question here that's not going
> to be solved by debate, however, from the comments so far, the patch
> seems to have a fair amount of support. DV, perhaps you could weigh
> in with your opinion?
Since this is an aesthetic question, even adding this patch is not going
to solve it. It is a fact of life that there are a huge variety of names
that could be used - adding more & more aliases is not a solution. You
can never satisfy everyone's desired name choice. You just have to pick
one name and stick with it consistently.
I'm putting my vote with Dan on this (Just to be clear, my original
message in this thread was written in the spirit of "well, if you're
going to do this, then at least make sure what you're doing is
explicitly documented").
It's often a painful exercise to try and come up with the "best" name
for any particular operation, but once you've got a name, you've got a
name. After that, the truths are:
1) Multiple names for the same thing leads to confusion (which is what
prompted my earlier comment saying that the new names needed to be
clearly marked as synonyms).
2) There is no end to the new names that could be thought of as "better"
when taken in some particular context, or by some particular person.
3) If some action is named "foo-x" for foo objects, then a similar
action on fi objects should be named "fi-x" if at all possible. Maybe
"x" isn't the most appropriate name in the context of foo or fi, but
following a single model makes it easier to remember.
I know virsh isn't considered to be as strict of an environment as the
libvirt API proper, but we still need to be mindful of both backward
compatibility and of namespace pollution leading to confusion.
(If the current names bother you, you could just think of it from the
point of view of someone who has absolutely no knowledge of English, and
sees the command names as opaque cookies that produce the desired result.)
4:51 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:39:45 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:07PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
>>>
>>> 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. It also means scripts written again
>>> the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
I'm putting my vote with Dan on this (Just to be clear, my original
message in this thread was written in the spirit of "well, if you're
going to do this, then at least make sure what you're doing is
explicitly documented").
Well, I'm with Dan and Laine on this. I think adding the alias for mistyped
commands was good since it made life easier for those who know what command
they want to use keep forgetting to mistype it in the same way. However, I
don't like the idea of adding synonyms for commands just because it seems
easier for someone to remember the synonyms. It may lead to confusion when
people are talking about the same thing but are used to different synonyms.
It also destroys consistency which we have now. And we are not going to
translate various commands into different languages either, are we?
However, if we wanted to still be nice to end users, we could implement
user-defined aliases for virsh. It would give users more power since commonly
used options could be aliased as well, e.g., someone always doing p2p live
migrations could setup an alias "lm" to be "migrate --p2p --live". And
anyone
could make aliases to fit their needs. And I'm suggesting just a simple text
substitution that would just replace a recognized aliase at the beginning of a
command with the definition of the alias and just parse the result as if that
was what the user typed.
Jirka
9:21 a.m.
On 11/16/2012 03:51 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:39:45 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:07PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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. It also means scripts written again
>>>> the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
>
> I'm putting my vote with Dan on this (Just to be clear, my original
> message in this thread was written in the spirit of "well, if you're
> going to do this, then at least make sure what you're doing is
> explicitly documented").
Well, I'm with Dan and Laine on this. I think adding the alias for mistyped
commands was good since it made life easier for those who know what command
they want to use keep forgetting to mistype it in the same way. However, I
don't like the idea of adding synonyms for commands just because it seems
easier for someone to remember the synonyms. It may lead to confusion when
people are talking about the same thing but are used to different synonyms.
It also destroys consistency which we have now. And we are not going to
translate various commands into different languages either, are we?
However, if we wanted to still be nice to end users, we could implement
user-defined aliases for virsh. It would give users more power since commonly
used options could be aliased as well, e.g., someone always doing p2p live
migrations could setup an alias "lm" to be "migrate --p2p --live".
And anyone
could make aliases to fit their needs. And I'm suggesting just a simple text
substitution that would just replace a recognized aliase at the beginning of a
command with the definition of the alias and just parse the result as if that
was what the user typed.
Indeed, allowing user-defined aliases would be nicer. I'll go ahead and
revert my patch, and think about what it would take to let the user
customize things instead.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
2:04 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/16/2012 03:51 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 12:39:45 -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 03:24:07PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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. It also means scripts written again
>>>>> the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
>>
>> I'm putting my vote with Dan on this (Just to be clear, my original
>> message in this thread was written in the spirit of "well, if you're
>> going to do this, then at least make sure what you're doing is
>> explicitly documented").
>
> Well, I'm with Dan and Laine on this. I think adding the alias for mistyped
> commands was good since it made life easier for those who know what command
> they want to use keep forgetting to mistype it in the same way. However, I
> don't like the idea of adding synonyms for commands just because it seems
> easier for someone to remember the synonyms. It may lead to confusion when
> people are talking about the same thing but are used to different synonyms.
> It also destroys consistency which we have now. And we are not going to
> translate various commands into different languages either, are we?
>
> However, if we wanted to still be nice to end users, we could implement
> user-defined aliases for virsh. It would give users more power since commonly
> used options could be aliased as well, e.g., someone always doing p2p live
> migrations could setup an alias "lm" to be "migrate --p2p
--live". And anyone
> could make aliases to fit their needs. And I'm suggesting just a simple text
> substitution that would just replace a recognized aliase at the beginning of a
> command with the definition of the alias and just parse the result as if that
> was what the user typed.
Jiri,
That's actually an outstanding idea and I think would solve a lot of
this in the future.
Indeed, allowing user-defined aliases would be nicer. I'll go ahead and
revert my patch, and think about what it would take to let the user
customize things instead.
Eric,
For your design it might be worth while to have a global place for
aliases like /etc/libvirt while also allowing one in $HOME as well.
And both would be applied for system and session libvirt's. With the
one in $HOME being able to override or at least taking precedence to
the one in /etc/libvirt.
Just my 2 cents.
--
Doug Goldstein
9:55 a.m.
On 11/08/2012 07:24 AM, 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. It also means scripts written again
the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
The patch is already in, but we also took care to explicitly document
that the new aliases are just that, and that portable scripts should use
the old name.
I don't see how this is any different to having both 'quit' and
'exit'
as aliases, nor even from 'detach-device' being documented as having an
older misspelled 'dettach-device' counterpart. In other words, I don't
see that adding aliases is a problem. On the other hand, I do agree
that we cannot remove any alias, once released, so we need to resolve
this situation prior to the release of 1.0.1.
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.
Although I have argued that aliases are helpful, I can understand your
counter-argument that too many aliases, or aliases that are unrelated to
the task at hand, are not wise. If you would like to propose a
counter-patch that removes the just-added 'restart' alias, and
repurposes 'stop' to be an alias to 'destroy' rather than
'shutdown',
then that would leave us with:
'start' has alias 'boot'
'reboot' has no alias
'shutdown' has no alias
'destroy' has alias 'stop'
and I would feel comfortable ACK'ing such a patch before 1.0.1.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
10:19 a.m.
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 08:55:27AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 11/08/2012 07:24 AM, 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. It also means scripts written again
> the new commands will not work with existing libvirt.
The patch is already in, but we also took care to explicitly document
that the new aliases are just that, and that portable scripts should use
the old name.
I really want to see that patch reverted from GIT.
I don't see how this is any different to having both
'quit' and 'exit'
as aliases, nor even from 'detach-device' being documented as having an
older misspelled 'dettach-device' counterpart. In other words, I don't
see that adding aliases is a problem. On the other hand, I do agree
that we cannot remove any alias, once released, so we need to resolve
this situation prior to the release of 1.0.1.
FWIW, I was not in favour of aliases in the first place, but I
defer to others in the case of previous aliases.
In this case though, I am really against the new proposed names
since I think 'stop' and 'restart' and a bad choice of names
as compared to our existing 'shutdown' and 'reboot'.
> 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.
Although I have argued that aliases are helpful, I can understand your
counter-argument that too many aliases, or aliases that are unrelated to
the task at hand, are not wise. If you would like to propose a
counter-patch that removes the just-added 'restart' alias, and
repurposes 'stop' to be an alias to 'destroy' rather than
'shutdown',
then that would leave us with:
'start' has alias 'boot'
'reboot' has no alias
'shutdown' has no alias
'destroy' has alias 'stop'
and I would feel comfortable ACK'ing such a patch before 1.0.1.
If we add an alias for 'destroy' we must do so for all instances
of 'destroy', including for storage, network.
I'm not really in favour of using 'boot' as an alias, since I
don't think 'boot' is a good term in the context of non-machine
based virtualization.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
4:17 p.m.
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
4389
days inactive
4402
days old
24 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Daniel P. Berrange -
Dave Allan -
Doug Goldstein -
Eric Blake -
James B. Byrne -
Jim Fehlig -
Jiri Denemark -
Laine Stump -
Peter Krempa -
Viktor Mihajlovski