On Nov 19, 2007 7:39 AM, Rainer Heilke <rheilke at dragonhearth.com> wrote:
>
>
> Ah. So, if the discussion concludes with this and my comments of last
> night, then he (and I) still isn't getting what he wanted.
>
> Rainer
>
On that note, here's what I'm thinking. I don't really have the consensus
I'm comfortable with. You, Darren, Jordan, Nicolas, and others have been
making some good points recently regarding start/stop not adding enough as
simply aliases for enable -t. IMHO, I agree.
My current philosophy regarding this train is this:
1) I don't have the authority to just call the shot, and just implementing
the RFE prima fascie because I won't get vetoed at the last minute serves no
useful purpose and may lock in a useful verb which may be better suited
having relatively different functionality.
2) There doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for simply implementing an
alias. There seems to be some acceptance by the SMF team -- maybe because
the proposal I initially made had little impact other than the aliases. I'd
rather get more alignment from admins and SMF engineering.
3) Lots of ideas for other RFE's were championed which have similar
touchpoints.
4) I opened the can of worms (with warning), and I would like to keep
momentum going.
So, I'm pretty sure I should be closing the bug off as wont-fix. I'll also
put up a wiki to coalesce these things together ('-i', next-reboot-state vs
current state, etc). I suspect the start -i -r -s -v -whatever that will
win the most hearts and minds will probably require more than an alias and
will require a ARC review and/or a vote -- or at least a decision process
that I don't feel comfortable making on my own.
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20071119/c4a25b56/attachment.html>
