I do agree that we should not change command interface arbitrary! I'd like to share the background why this issue happened. We realized that the interface of bmcdiscovery command needs be changed just before the release of 2.10. But we don't have time to make another build so I announced this feature as experimental. And we were thinking this command will be rarely used. But looks like we were wrong.
Now the compromise is we will keep the '-m' as an internal option for backward compatibility. And we will try to avoid the non-backward capability interface change. Thanks Best Regards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wang Xiaopeng (王晓朋) IBM China System Technology Laboratory Tel: 86-10-82453455 Email: [email protected] Address: 28,ZhongGuanCun Software Park,No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China 100193 From: Jarrod Johnson <[email protected]> To: xCAT Users Mailing list <[email protected]>, "Christopher Samuel" <[email protected]> Date: 2015/08/12 21:21 Subject: Re: [xcat-user] Change breaking backword compatibility What was the reason to change it in the first place? The CLI is an automation target. A great deal of xCAT would be different if we didn't care about being backward compatible with our previous decisions. For very big leaps (2 to 3), ok (to an extent) but without very very very strong reason, changing syntax seems a worrisome path. It's one of the reasons why I'm being so unsure about whether 'confluent' ends up being 'xCAT 3' or 'something else and continuing xCAT 2 so that users aren't messed with too bady'. Some people like the concept of moving forward with a clean slate, but that level of thinking leads to Windows 8 and Gnome 3, but even worse since we have a great deal of automation depending on us. From: Yuan Y Bai [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 12:52 AM To: xCAT Users Mailing list; Christopher Samuel Subject: Re: [xcat-user] Change breaking backword compatibility Hi Christopher, It is ugly if support both old flag '-m' and new flag '-s'; Do you have important justification to keep old flag '-m'? Best Regards -------------------------------------------------- Yuan Bai (白媛) CSTL HPC System Management Development Tel:86-10-82451401 E-mail: [email protected] Address: IBM ZGC Campus. Ring Building 28, ZhongGuanCun Software Park,No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District, Beijing P.R.China 100193 IBM环宇大厦 北京市海淀区东北旺西路8号，中关村软件园28号楼 邮编:100193 Inactive hide details for Christopher Samuel ---08/12/2015 11:54:02 AM---On 12/08/15 12:53, Yuan Y Bai wrote: > Could you changChristopher Samuel ---08/12/2015 11:54:02 AM---On 12/08/15 12:53, Yuan Y Bai wrote: > Could you change your scripts to use `-s method` ? From: Christopher Samuel <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 08/12/2015 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [xcat-user] Change breaking backword compatibility On 12/08/15 12:53, Yuan Y Bai wrote: > Could you change your scripts to use `-s method` ? Is it not possible to also support the old flag too to avoid breaking backwards compatibility? All the best, Chris -- Christopher Samuel Senior Systems Administrator VLSCI - Victorian Life Sciences Computation Initiative Email: [email protected] Phone: +61 (0)3 903 55545 http://www.vlsci.org.au/ http://twitter.com/vlsci ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ xCAT-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ xCAT-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ xCAT-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
