Excerpts from transarc.external.info-afs: 7-Sep-94 Re: new features for
AFS 3.5 Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] (1161)
> Another thing I'd suggest is
> that the vos remove command not need a server and partition
specified.
How's that quote go? "...mistakes were made."
Something like that. That's been on my list for a few years, but never
quite makes it to the top. That is, it's annoying, but only annoying.
Excerpts from transarc.external.info-afs: 8-Sep-94 Re: new features for
AFS 3.5 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (1037)
> > The obvious solution is to change the order on the command line.
> >
> > %% vos help remove
> > vos remove: delete a volume
> > Usage: vos remove -id <volume name or ID> [-server <machine name> ]
> > [-partition <partition name> ] [-f ] [-cell <cell name>] [-noauth ]
> > [-localauth ] [-verbose ] [-help ]
> Hoping this goes w/o saying, but the obvious solution is to NOT break
existing scripts that call this.
whoa. I *hope* that any serious scripts fully specify the switch names.
The ability to abbreviate or elide the switches, and to use only the
arguments, is intended to ease the load on your weary fingers when
you're typing in commands manually (or one-off scripts, natch). But if
you're embedding short switches, we could all run into a little trouble
in the future. For instance, if we add a -silent option to vos remove,
then -s is no longer a legal switch abbreviation, so if you were using
it to abbreviate -server, you'll be in trouble. Ok, so we could call
the switch -terse, maybe, but that would collide with some other -t*
option on some other command. And so it goes.
So please, if you're writing scripts and embedding AFS commands in them,
spell out the switch names. In which case, changing the order of
switches won't break programs, only "finger macros."
