On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 01:41:27PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 16:21 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:09:50PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > So once we have these changes in place, command line users can be
> > pretty much completely isolated from libvirt defaults, just like
> > virt-manager and oVirt and Nova users. Then it will be up to us
> > to actually advertise these alternatives and push users away from
> > virsh[1] and towards them.
> >
> > I wonder if showing a message suggesting to use virt-xml instead
> > when 'virsh edit' or 'virsh attach-device' are called would be
> > considered acceptable at that point?
>
> Depends what you mean by showing a message ? I'd be fine with the
> virsh man page referring people to virt-xml as a companion tool.
>
> I would certainly not expect invokation of 'virsh edit' to print
> any text on the console, as it will always be valid to want to
> use "virsh edit", "virsh atach-device" or any other command
> precisely because they are an almost direct passthrough to the
> libvirt API without trying to inject clever logic of their own.
Okay, let's forget the runtime messages then: we can mention
virt-xml (and virt-install) in the documentation, write blog posts
about them, and the like.
Does the rest of the plan look reasonable to you?
Sure, I'm fine with docs updates.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|