Mark Shellenbaum wrote:
Glenn Skinner wrote:
The following is a nit-level comment, so I've directed it onl;y to you,
rather than to the entire list.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:57:35 -0600
From: Mark Shellenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [zfs-discuss] Proposal: delegated administration
The following is the delegated admin model that Matt and I have
been working on. At this point we are ready for your feedback on
the proposed model.
...
PERMISSION REVOKING
zfs unallow <dataset> [-r] [-l] [-d]
<"everyone"|user|group>[,<"everyone"|user|group>...] \
<ability>[,<ability>...] <dataset>
zfs unallow [-r][-l][-d] -u user <ability>[,<ability>...] <dataset>
zfs unallow [-r][-l][-d] -g group <ability>[,<ability>...]
<dataset>
zfs unallow [-r][-l][-d] -e <ability>[,<ability>...] <dataset>
Please, can we have "disallow" instead of "unallow"? The former is a
real word, the latter isn't.
-- Glenn
The reasoning behind unallow was to imply that you are simply removing
an "allow". With *disallow* it would sound more like you are denying
a permission.
Then make the removal operation another arg to "allow".
Or better yet, use a pair of words where you're not tempted to use bad
English, such as "grant" and "revoke",
or just use "revoke" anyway?
Darren
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
