Quick Poll on a naming issue...

Jay Shaughnessy jshaughn at redhat.com
Fri Apr 19 13:25:42 UTC 2013


Sounds like we have a winner.  And given that we'll break from the 
traditional naming format, it seems appropriate to drop the extension on 
*unix:

rhqctl
rhqctl.bat
rhqctl.properties
rhqctl.log
-Drhqctl.properties-file

Let me know if you have any further comments, thanks,

Jay

On 4/19/2013 5:14 AM, Jiri Kremser wrote:
> +1 on rhqctl
>
> If user adds it to its PATH env., it will be easy to call it from anywhere as a common unix command.
>
> jk
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Thomas Segismont" <tsegismo at redhat.com>
>> To: rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
>> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:42:07 AM
>> Subject: Re: Quick Poll on a naming issue...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Le 18/04/2013 23:26, Larry O'Leary a écrit :
>>> I like rhqctl myself.
>>>
>>> Of course, I still do not understand why the .sh extension is used. .sh
>>> indicates that the script is an include or should be passed to a shell
>>> using:
>>>
>>>      . rhqctl.sh
>>>      source rhqctl.sh
>>>
>>> Or:
>>>
>>>      sh rhqctl.sh
>>>      bash rhqctl.sh
>>>
>>>
>>> Where as: "rhqctl" (no extension with execute attribute set) on *nix
>>> allows one to use the same command on Windows and *nix platforms:
>>>
>>> Linux:
>>>      ./rhqctl start
>>> Windows
>>>      rhqctl start
>>>
>>> And documentation no longer has to say rhqctl.[sh|cmd].
>>>
>>> Any way, just one of my pet peeves. :)
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rhq-devel mailing list
>> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
>> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rhq-devel mailing list
> rhq-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list