[libvirt PATCH v2] manpages/virsh: A couple of small clarifications

[Michal Privoznik]

On 8/24/20 5:39 PM, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 05:33:21PM +0200, Peter Krempa wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 17:01:50 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>>> On 8/4/20 4:04 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>>>> Changes:
>>>>
>>>>     - Update the descriptions of --current & --config flags.
>>>>
>>>>       For --config, the reason to rephrase "next boot" to "next start"
>>>>       is: "Next boot may still imply somebody selecting "reboot" in the
>>>>       guest OS and fully expecting the changes to be applied."  (per Peter
>>>>       Krempa)
>>>>
>>>>       For --current, existing documentation says:
>>>>
>>>>         "If *--current* is specified, affect the current guest state."
>>>>
>>>>       It's not entirely clear what states can "current" mean or imply.  So
>>>>       rephrase it in context of the other two related flags --live and
>>>>       --config.
>>>>
>>>>     - While at it, I also took the liberty to replace the few occurrences
>>>>       of "peristent domain[s]" with "persistent guest[s]"
>>>>
>>>> Fix all occurrences (i.e. as many as I could spot) of this.
>>>>
>>>> (Thanks: Dan Berrangé on IRC.)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kashyap Chamarthy <kchamart at redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> - v2: Address Peter Krempa's feedback
>>>>     (https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2020-July/msg01274.html)
>>>> ---
>>>>    docs/manpages/virsh.rst | 163 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>>>    1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/docs/manpages/virsh.rst b/docs/manpages/virsh.rst
>>>> index 1a2cf09fb7..561b1f038e 100644
>>>> --- a/docs/manpages/virsh.rst
>>>> +++ b/docs/manpages/virsh.rst
>>>> @@ -710,7 +710,7 @@ groups:
>>>>    Persistence
>>>>    ...........
>>>> -Flag *--persistent* is used to include persistent domains in the returned
>>>> +Flag *--persistent* is used to include persistent guests in the returned
>>>>    list. To include transient domains specify *--transient*.
>>>
>>> So this changes "domains" to "guests", but only for the first sentence. The
>>> second one still refers to "domains". IMO this is not desirable change
>>> because it's not aligned with our terminology. We call them "domains" (I
>>> wish we would call them guests too, but too late for that). And we are not
>>> consistent, I know.
>>>
>>>>    Existence of managed save image
>>>> @@ -1089,8 +1089,9 @@ then the default value of 1 second will be displayed. Supplying a 0 will
>>>>    reset the value back to the default.
>>>>    If *--live* is specified, affect a running guest.
>>>> -If *--config* is specified, affect the next boot of a persistent guest.
>>>> -If *--current* is specified, affect the current guest state.
>>>> +If *--config* is specified, affect the next start of a persistent guest.
>>>
>>> s/next start/next cold start/?
>>> s/guest/domain/ (here and for the rest of the lines you're changing)
>>
>> To be fair, I'm not very fond of sticking too much to the XEN
>> terminology, especially since most of the virtualization world uses
>> 'guest' to refer to it.
> 
> +1 or VM (virtual machine) which is commonly used as well.
> 
> Our API obviously have to stick with `domain` but everywhere else I
> would prefer using guest/VM.

Alright then, I'm changing the "domains" in the second sentence in the 
first hunk to "guests" then and merging the rest as is.

Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn at redhat.com>

Michal