Quoting S.Çağlar Onur (cag...@10ur.org): > Hi, > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Dwight Engen <dwight.en...@oracle.com>wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 16:22:11 -0500 > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com): > > > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:40:10 -0500 > > > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Quoting Dwight Engen (dwight.en...@oracle.com): > > > > > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:48:21 -0500 > > > > > > Serge Hallyn <serge.hal...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > lxc-create ... -o - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will send template output to standard output (the old > > > > > > > default). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lxc-create ... without any -o will hide template output. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lxc-create -o /tmp/xxx will send template output to the file > > > > > > > /tmp/xxx. > > > > > > > > > > > > I like having a -o for lxc-create, but I'm not sure we should > > > > > > change the > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, that was wrong in my commit msg. > > > > > > > > > > only '--outfile' works (because 'o' is used by the common options > > > > > for logfile output) > > > > > > > > > > > default of lxc-create to not show the template output. For > > > > > > interactive > > > > > > > > > > We could swap the meanings so that '--outfile -' means on output, > > > > > and not listing '--outfile' shows the output on stdout. > > > > > > > > Sorry, I'm not getting the difference between --outfile - and just > > > > getting output on stdout? My main concern was that lxc-create > > > > without any extra args do what it does today (shows output). > > > > > > With this current patch: > > > > > > lxc-create with no extra args does not show output > > > "lxc-create --outfile -" shows output to stdout > > > > > > I'm suggesting we just flip those. > > > > Ahh, yep, I'd like it better flipped then as the no args case won't > > change today's behavior, but if others feel strongly I don't really > > care too much. So this is what I think you're proposing: > > > > lxc-create with no extra args -> shows output on stdout > > lxc-create --outfile - -> shows output on stdout > > lxc-create --outfile /tmp/xxx -> output in /tmp/xxx > > > What about adding a quiet parameter instead? It can silence the output and > default will write to stdout, this way people who wants output file can > redirect stdout to file as well
If by 'instead' you mean not passing in fds at all and just adding a quiet parameter, and by redirect stdout you mean 'lxc-create ... > outout', then I like that better for being simpler to do. But I'll do whichever of those is preferred. Will passing in fds add flexbility that anyone actually will *want*? (My feeling tbh is no) -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Lxc-devel mailing list Lxc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-devel
