Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 01:01:14PM -0600, Mark Martin wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:55 PM, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at >> sun.com> >> wrote: >>> My objection was, admittedly, weak. IIRC I conceded that when I made >>> it. >> I'd rather keep the simple errorlevel semantic: 0 = svcs -x prints nothing, >> 3 = svcs -x prints something. >> >> Getting svcs -x to squawk more about degraded services should be another >> case. >> >> Besides, I'd rather see the priority on common config storage upgraded >> (although I lack the fortitude to tell anyone here to get stuffed). > > Better learn quick! :) > > OK, so, Liane: here's your chance -last chance- to tell me to stuff it :)
I think Mark's updated proposal is quite sensible. I'd like to reserve my right to tell you to stuff it on other topics in the future, though. ;) liane
