On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:01:52AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 26.03.12 23:58, Lennart Poettering (lenn...@poettering.net) wrote: > > > On Sun, 18.03.12 20:28, Dave Reisner (d...@falconindy.com) wrote: > > > > Heya, > > > > > The man page listed -f as the shortopt for both --follow and --force, > > > but the shortopt only applied to --force. Since --force is the dangerous > > > option, take away the shortopt and give it to --follow. Users should be > > > reminded that what they're about to do isn't standard procedure. > > > > Hmm, so I change this the other way round, so that -f is short for > > --force, not for --follow. > > > > This main reason is simply that -f as --force was already that way a > > long time ago and we included the systemctl interface in our interface > > stability promise. > > > > Besides at least I myself while debugging systemd quite often have to > > type "systemctl reboot -ff", but that'd be much hrder with "systemctl > > reboot --force --force"... > > Hmm thinking about it, it might actually make sense that -f really is > short for both --force and --follow. Given that no command uses both in > conjunction anyway this should be fairly safe I think. > > That way --force or -f would enable force mode for "systemctl enable", > "systemctl reboot". And --follow or -f would enable follow mode for > "systemctl status". > > Opinions? Is this kind of overloading ugly? I am tempted to say it's > pretty OK, what do you say? > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
My OCD says otherwise, but I think this seems like a reasonable solution, since the options end up being mutually exclusive. d _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel