On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: > > 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. >
This is fair, and that's what we've done for now. > -- > Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
