On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 13:45 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Ok, > can I get the responses on the mailing list as "yes, we are interested > in such universal tool in case it keeps backward compatibility and > switches to cyrus user?".
> What about the name? Is /usr/bin/cyrus good? I'd go with cyrus-tool, like Samba has switched to a single tool named samba-tool backward-compat doesn't matter much to me, but I'm just one random guy. I've always thought the tools, while pretty good, where/are themselves a bit random/arbitrary in name and syntax. [But then I'm a big fan of Powershell's verb-noun consistency] > In case the answer to both question is "yes" then I'll improve the > tool to fix those issues mentioned in the mailing list (switching to > cyrus user, compile time path) and then rewrite the tool into the C > (so it can call mailbox_reconstruct() and others directly) with > keeping backwards compatibility (or the usual plan - keep both in one > major release (2.5.x), print deprecation warnings in next major > release (2.6.x) and remove them in next+1 major release (2.7.x)). > How does that sound?
