From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:42182 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751317AbbFZEV4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:21:56 -0400 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z8L9A-0002rn-HU for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:21:48 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:21:48 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 06:21:48 +0200 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] btrfs device remove alias Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 04:21:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <558CA6A0.20401@oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anand Jain posted on Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:10:56 +0800 as excerpted: > while on this. its also good idea to create alias for > > btrfs replace start -> btrfs device replace. > > any comments ? That's actually the one that makes more sense to me. Delete/remove/ subtract, all about the same to me, so while I'm not opposed to alias for that, I don't really see the need. But with btrfs device add/remove, having btrfs replace instead of btrfs device replace, makes absolutely no sense to me, so I'm all for that alias. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman