Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 11:12:45PM -0700, Rainer Heilke wrote: >> Nicolas Williams wrote: >>> No, I think *nothing* should do a clear operation other than clear >>> itself. The consensus on this, ISTM, is strong. >> In which case, as I've said, I don't see the point of having "start" at >> all (it's just an alias to "enable -some switches"). It buys us nothing. > > That's what the start proposal has always been: an alias. Or at least > that's what Darren's original suggestion was, and it's what I support.
That is what Darren's proposal was, but the proposal did not actually encompass what some people were asking for. Hence, this very long discussion, with its many twists and turns and branches. > A "revive" command could be more heroic because it the word implies > that, but as long as we don't have a way to automate the process of > restoring a service in maintenance mode to health, I don't see how such > a command could be safe. If the service was in production mode, then yes, I agree. > Not to belabor the point, but, I agree, an alias buys us nothing much. > I've already explained what feature I think we need (not "start"). Yes, which (if I remember correctly) means we are asking for two different things. Rainer -- Mind the gap.
