Tim, Update Copyright dates to 2009, other than that looks fine now.
thanks, -ethan Tim Knitter wrote: > > > Ethan Quach wrote: >> >> Tim Knitter wrote: >>> >>> Ethan Quach wrote: >>>> Tim, >>>> >>>> libbe.c - 781 - needs update. >>>> >>> Actually that describes what is passed in to beVerifyBEName() just >>> like the other functions in libbe.c since that info is hard to >>> determine from the generic parameters (PyObject *self, PyObject *args). >> >> Okay, thats fine then. This is inconsistent with some of the >> other block function comments though. >> > > I made all the "Parameters:" section in the function headers consistent. > >>>> Another thing that just occurred to me is that there are many >>>> places in beadm.py that parse a beName as a commandline argument. >>>> Is there any particular reason why you only added the beName verify >>>> check to those two places? >>>> >>> Yes. All the other functions that accept beName as an argument use a >>> beName that has already been created or verified. e.g. beadm destroy >>> <beName> the beName has already been created so checking it after the >>> fact isn't needed. "rename" and "create" are the only beNames that >>> work with a freshly devised name from the user. >> >> Are you saying a user could never type "beadm destroy foo%%" ? >> > > Sure they could type that but they would have never been able to create > it initially since the beadm create <beName> argument is checked. > However I agree that adding the check for each subcommand is more > consistent and will provide a better message for the case you mentioned > so I added the check to all the subcommands. > WR updated. > > Thanks > Tim >> >> -ethan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
