On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:47 PM, David Lutterkort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 09:38 +0200, Raphaël Pinson wrote: > > * Using another name for the node: > > > > e.g. > > /files/path/to/my/file/c_field = "value" > > > > This also fixes the flag issue, since the field name is different. > > Yes, that would probably be the most usable way to do this (maybe prefix > the field name with a '.' or similar) Great! I think it might really be the best way. > > > > To comment/uncomment here would mean to rename the field, if > > possible. Something that would look like : > > > > mv /files/path/to/my/file/c_field /files/path/to/my/file/field > > > > I don't know how hard it would be to get to such a possibility in > > Augeas. > > It wouldn't be hard at all; the main issue would be to make sure that > you can specify very precisely where the target is in relation to its > siblings. > > I am thinking that the best way to achieve that is by allowing the > target of the move to exist; in that case, the target will be deleted > from the tree and the source be moved into its place. > > If the target does not exist yet, it is created by appending to the list > of its siblings. > > How does that sound ? > Well as I am thinking of how "mv" would work, it would actually make sense to have it be a combination of a cp and a rm, since it could be useful to have a "cp" command to duplicate a node. And since "rm" already exists, I guess it wouldn't be hard to code rm as a sequence of "cp" and "rm". What do you think? Raphael
_______________________________________________ augeas-devel mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/augeas-devel
