On 01/19/15 23:52, Laurent Bercot wrote: > On 19/01/2015 21:55, Olivier Brunel wrote: >> Side question: I see you haven't added support of the file "ready" into >> s6-svstat, any reason? > > I hesitated, then decided against it, but that's not a strong decision. > > The argument was that s6-svstat shows the state of the service as it is > seen by s6-supervise, i.e. purely the process up/down state. Introducing > the notion of readiness into it would change things. For instance, > s6-svstat currently prints the number of seconds that the process has > been up; users may be more interested in knowing want the number of > seconds that the process has been ready, and that needs storing another > timestamp. The supervise/ready file could be used for that, but I'm > not comfortable enough yet with tightly integrating readiness into the > whole series of tools. In the beginning, I thought I could get away > with s6-notifywhenup only, but it appears that modifications are > spreading across several binaries - I need time to convince myself that > it's not gratuitous feature creep and the utility is worth the increase > in complexity. I'm paranoid like that.
I see... Well, thing is, as you said, support for the ready file is already more than just s6-notifywhenup, since s6-supervise takes care of removing it when needed, or s6-svwait also has support for it. Which is why it already feels like an integral part of s6 (at least from a user POV), and felt like a bug to me that the indication of a service being ready was missing from s6-svstat (Seems inconsistent that only some tools would support/be aware of that file, while others ignore it). (Plus, it's pretty much only stating whether a file exists or not, in terms of complexity s6-svstat is probably the lesser affected of the tools actually :p) I get your point re: integrating readiness into the whole suite though, even though this feels like it might already be happening really.
