Re: [libvirt] Request to rename 'destroy' to something milder.

On 06/14/2011 07:53 PM, Michal Novotny wrote: > On 06/14/2011 04:15 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote: >> On 14.06.2011 12:31, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote: >>> (please cc me in response as I have not subscribed to this list) >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> A minor nitpick: >>> >>> Every-time I suggest someone to do a force shut-down a guest using >>> 'virsh destroy foo' , the very first question I get is -- does it >>> _destroy_ my data? >>> >>> This causes confusion to the inexperienced user and makes him/her >>> suspect that the data/disk could be destroyed while running 'virsh >>> destroy foo' >>> >>> Maybe replacing it to a milder name like 'poweroff' or something might >>> help? >> Libvirt has this philosophy to be backward compatible and therefore not >> to change old API including virsh commands. But as time flies, some APIs >> are consumed by new ones (virDomainCreateLinux is now just alias for >> virDomainCreateXML). So changing this is not feasible way. What might >> be, is to create less invasive aliases. But we can't make 'destroy' >> command to go away. > Hi Michal, > that's right and that's right I've recommended adding the new command > 'poweroff' to be an alias for the 'destroy'. We can do rename right now > but we can mark 'destroy' as obsoleted with backwards compatibility and > issue the 'poweroff' command instead. If the 'destroy' command is marked > as obsoleted at least in the virsh case we can remove the 'destroy' > command one day theoretically since it will be no longer supported way > to poweroff the guest. And by 'one day' I mean in several minor (or even > major) of libvirt. Michal, yep, this sounds perfectly reasonable. And doesn't break any backward compatibility..