You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I think unified syntax should be used for vnctl command line options. Currently, two types of syntax are used for GNU-style long options, with and without = (equal sign).
This confuses novice users, but it's not the only reason why we should unify the syntax. The most important thing is to improve ci testing. There is a possibility that other programs or scripts invoke vnctl. Which syntax is tested in such cases?
In C, getopt_long(3) requires equal signs only for optional arguments, unlike for mandatory arguments. Thus, they may yield different results. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1052746/getopt-does-not-parse-optional-arguments-to-parameters
I prefer and recommend the syntax with equal sign, the same style as ovs-vsctl.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think unified syntax should be used for
vnctl
command line options. Currently, two types of syntax are used for GNU-style long options, with and without=
(equal sign).In the web documentation, options and arguments are separated by spaces:
On the other hand,
vnctl
help uses equal sign style:This confuses novice users, but it's not the only reason why we should unify the syntax. The most important thing is to improve ci testing. There is a possibility that other programs or scripts invoke
vnctl
. Which syntax is tested in such cases?In C,
getopt_long(3)
requires equal signs only for optional arguments, unlike for mandatory arguments. Thus, they may yield different results.http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1052746/getopt-does-not-parse-optional-arguments-to-parameters
I prefer and recommend the syntax with equal sign, the same style as
ovs-vsctl
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: