[libvirt] Request to rename 'destroy' to something milder.

[Kashyap Chamarthy]

On 06/14/2011 07:53 PM, Michal Novotny wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 04:15 PM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 14.06.2011 12:31, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>>> (please cc me in response as I have not subscribed to this list)
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> A minor nitpick:
>>>
>>> Every-time I suggest someone to do a force shut-down a guest using
>>> 'virsh destroy foo' , the very first question I get is -- does it
>>> _destroy_ my data?
>>>
>>> This causes confusion to the inexperienced user and makes him/her
>>> suspect that the data/disk could be destroyed while running 'virsh
>>> destroy foo'
>>>
>>> Maybe replacing it to a milder name like 'poweroff' or something might
>>> help?
>> Libvirt has this philosophy to be backward compatible and therefore not
>> to change old API including virsh commands. But as time flies, some APIs
>> are consumed by new ones (virDomainCreateLinux is now just alias for
>> virDomainCreateXML). So changing this is not feasible way. What might
>> be, is to create less invasive aliases. But we can't make 'destroy'
>> command to go away.
>
> Hi Michal,
> that's right and that's right I've recommended adding the new command
> 'poweroff' to be an alias for the 'destroy'. We can do rename right now
> but we can mark 'destroy' as obsoleted with backwards compatibility and
> issue the 'poweroff' command instead. If the 'destroy' command is marked
> as obsoleted at least in the virsh case we can remove the 'destroy'
> command one day theoretically since it will be no longer supported way
> to poweroff the guest. And by 'one day' I mean in several minor (or even
> major) of libvirt.

Michal, yep, this sounds perfectly reasonable. And doesn't break any backward compatibility..
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>


-- 
/kashyap