David Bustos wrote: > Quoth Liane Praza on Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:54:08PM -0800: >> David Bustos wrote: >>> Doesn't this command imply the need to tell when refresh is necessary, >>> and what changes it will make? >> hmmm. Suggests it'd be nice, sure, and as I suspect you've seen I've >> been updating related bugs. But, I think it's separable and valuable >> even without the work of determining what's been modified in the >> existing svccfg session. > > Ok. Sorry for not paying closer attention, but is there a specific bug > ID for this functionality?
6488032 Interactive svccfg should advise svcadm refresh >>> What stability level? I would like to replace it with transactional >>> semantics (i.e., a "commit" subcommand) in the profiles project. >> Committed. And Patch binding. I suspect we'll want to backport the >> offline refresh functionality, and don't suspect we'll be backporting >> profiles. >> >> If profiles come in before Nevada ships with a better solution (or new >> subcommand) for the offline repository problem, and we determine it's >> better to obsolete this in favor of the new interface, that's relatively >> simple. (Modulo a hypothesized but not guaranteed backport.) > > If we suspect this will be obsoleted, shouldn't that result in a lower > stability level? Otherwise, aren't we saddling ourselves with > supporting this for two releases? The functionality will need to still exist, right? I guess I'm just missing the big support burden. liane
