From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Durgin Subject: Re: A plea for more tooling usage Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 14:21:49 -0700 Message-ID: <5386536D.7020503@inktank.com> References: <20140506134826.GA17004@trvx.org> <20140515233431.GS13333@thinkpad.thebehrens.net> <20140527221935.GA15288@thinkpad.thebehrens.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com ([209.85.223.182]:53489 "EHLO mail-ie0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751695AbaE1VVu (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 17:21:50 -0400 Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x19so3551235ier.41 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 14:21:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140527221935.GA15288@thinkpad.thebehrens.net> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thorsten Behrens , Danny Al-Gaaf Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On 05/27/2014 03:19 PM, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > I wrote: >> Sage Weil wrote: >>> If anybody is interested in helping with that effort, pull requests >>> are very welcome! :) >>> > [snip] > >> As hinted at in the patch, something like boost::program_options would >> be nice, but that's a chunk of work & I'd rather hear feedback first >> this way or the other. For the boost option, not sure if verbose error >> reporting (the if (oss) parts) would translate over easily, I presume >> that is deemed important? >> > Hi guys, > > any further opinion on that? If no one feels strongly, I think I'll > just go ahead & hack something up with program_options, and see if > that looks more pleasant. :) It'd be interesting if you could use boost::program_options just for the binary-specific flags. Trying to use it for all options, including those from common/config_opts.h, is a lot more effort. There was some work towards that a while ago, though the branch is no longer there: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ceph.devel/11139 Josh