On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Kyle Mestery <mest...@mestery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 12:00:08 PM: > > > >> From: Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> > >> To: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > >> Cc: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS, ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > >> Date: 08/02/2016 12:00 PM > >> Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Add wrapper scripts for *ctl commands > >> > >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:56:27AM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > >> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > This commit creates wrapper scripts for the *ctl commands to use > >> > > --dry-run for those that have them, and to allow for log level > >> > > setting via ovs-appctl without allowing full access to ovs-appctl. > >> > > Tests have been added to make sure that the wrapper scripts > >> > > don't actually do anything when asked to perform a write operation. > >> > > > >> > > Signed-off-by: Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> > >> > > > >> > > >> > What's the motivation for all the new "read" scripts? It seems a bit > >> > confusing to install all of these. They're also not documented > > anywhere. > >> > >> My assumption had been that we'd put the options into the tree and then > >> that the one-liner redirection scripts would be an IBM customization. > >> After all, they need to customize somehow anyway to hide the read/write > >> versions in some off-$PATH place. > >> > >> +1 to this approach. > >> > >> -- > >> Russell Bryant > > > > Obviously, I think this is somewhat short-sighted (or I wouldn't have > > proposed > > the patch)... > > > > How about if we were to spin a new repo openvswitch/operator-tools (like > > openvswitch/ovn-scale-test) > > and put things like this *there*? > > > I'd be in favor of this approach, because I think having tools like > this for cloud operators would be a good thing to share. And as one of > the main users/committers into ovn-scale-test, I can also attest to > how nice it is to have the shared github to work on so. > > So I'm +1 to this new repository idea. > There are lots of things in the ovs repo that could be considered operator tools, but I don't think moving them is really needed. The issue here is whether this is more IBM specific or general purpose. Maybe create the new repo in a personal space somewhere and we see what builds up there to see if it makes sense to move it to openvswitch/? I don't think just these one liner scripts really justify it, yet. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
