Ethan Quach wrote: > Tim, > > Update Copyright dates to 2009, other than that looks fine now.
Done. WR updated push proceeding... Thanks Tim > > > 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
