+1 for a single command I'm ok with keeping the old command name and just having it show more info.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > I think it should be a single command because the user is trying to > diagnose the same problem - what persistent data is missing that is > preventing system recovery? I'm not sure what the best name of the command > is. > > -Dan > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Kenneth Howe <kh...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > GEODE-1128 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-1128> requests > > the addition of missing colocated region information to the gfsh show > > missing-disk-stores command. This is of course doable, however with > > additional information not directly related to disk stores, the command > > name would be misleading. You may have missing colocated regions without > > missing disk stores, or the converse, missing stores without missing > > regions. > > > > So my question is: Should the command be renamed to better indicate the > > types of information reported? While working on this Jira, I have been > > using the new command name ‘show persistent-recovery-failures’. (Please > > suggest a better name!) > > > > Alternatives to renaming the command are > > 1) Do nothing with the command name. Add the missing colocated region > > information, but leave the command name as is. > > 2) Add a new command with both missing disk stores and missing colocated > > regions, and leave the existing missing-disk-stores command as is. > > > > Looking for a consensus on the best approach. > > > > Thanks, > > Ken Howe > > >
