cyrus-tool sounds good to me. O.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 15:14, Adam Tauno Williams <awill...@opengroupware.us> wrote: > 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? > > > > -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org>