James Carlson wrote: >> However, if this (and also kmfcfg(1)) should have been "Committed" in >> the first place, >> then I have no problem with making that change here. >> > > The question should be about what stability the users of the tool > need, and what you're able to provide rather than a "should." > > My guess is that there are at least a few subcommands that would be > likely to be used within scripts, meaning that users will need > something that they can rely on. If that's something you can provide > -- a promise that you're not going to break things in a later Minor > release without prior notice -- then I think "Committed" would > probably be better. > >
We designed the interfaces so they could be scripted and we would prefer to not make incompatible changes in the future, so I am fine with switching them both to "Committed" (both pktool and kmfcfg). -Wyllys
