Same here, I'm doing bindings for NodeJS and I used stop instead of destroy
and also I used start instead create.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Suggestion:
>
> "virsh pool-destroy" sounds highly destructive. There is a
> "pool-start" command, so how about "
On 07/16/10 - 04:56:43AM, Justin Clift wrote:
> On 07/16/2010 04:48 AM, Dave Allan wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't object to aliasing pool-stop to pool-destroy, but I'm
> >curious to know what others on the list think.
>
> Full agreement from me. :)
I also think it is a good idea in general.
--
Chris La
On 07/16/2010 04:48 AM, Dave Allan wrote:
I wouldn't object to aliasing pool-stop to pool-destroy, but I'm
curious to know what others on the list think.
Full agreement from me. :)
+ Justin
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:44:33AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Suggestion:
>
> "virsh pool-destroy" sounds highly destructive. There is a
> "pool-start" command, so how about "pool-stop"? Similar
> commands could be introduced for the other *-start commands.
For pools especially
Hi folks,
Suggestion:
"virsh pool-destroy" sounds highly destructive. There is a
"pool-start" command, so how about "pool-stop"? Similar
commands could be introduced for the other *-start commands.
This would make using virsh _much_ easier.
In Unix world "start" and "stop" belong together, "st
