Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] virsh: add aliases 'boot', 'stop', and 'restart'

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?