On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 18:59 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: > You use the term "levels." That term draws from electrical engineering, > when talking about logic graphs (that look a lot like the line you drew > above :). From there we'd get the terms "high," "low," "rising," and > "falling." That's a bit too vocabulary-intensive for your style I think > but its a start :) If we wanted to improve iteratively from there I'd > probably recommend "up" and "down" rather than "high" and "low." These > are general enough to work for non-jobs, but their roots are more in > sysadmin-land than academia, which is good for our userbase. > Well, as you know, I never went to university and never studied electrical engineering, or logic analysis, or anything like that in depth :-)
So I don't think it's particularly worth trying to standardise on terms from any other discipline, simply because *I*'ll always get them wrong. When we come to write documentation, I imagine we'll standardise on a set of our own terms for things. > I'll save my follow-up for LPC. It may take some intense explanation. > The crux of it is that we might be able to implement a few more stanzas > that don't outwardly make sense, and, with the addition of being able to > #include other files within job definitions, be able to eliminate large > quantities of upstart's code in favor of a job state machine described > in job definition syntax. Freaky huh? > I think it's a good idea to write things down on the mailing list, rather than save them for LPC - even if the in-person stuff goes different directions, it means those on the ML get a preview of what you're thinking of ;-) (Also the very process of writing a mail tends to help focus the thoughts) Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- upstart-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
