[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1505883.O2zQ69A2Zb@merkaba>
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2016 19:16:40 +0100
From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@...htvoll.de>
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Subject: Re: getrichacl(1) man page review comments
Am Sonntag, 7. Februar 2016, 17:30:49 CET schrieb Michael Kerrisk (man-pages):
> Hello Andreas,
>
> Here, some comments on the getrichacl(1) page.
I know that the command names are based on setfacl and getfacl. But sometimes
I still wonder about these names. They just don´t fit.
Its chsomething for changing things in Unix traditionally – chown, chmod,
chattr, chage chsh, you name it –, but there is nothing for querying things.
So I get where this is coming from, yet I always found setfacl and getfacl
command names cumbersome.
Sorry, for posting here instead of a previous richacl implementation patchset.
I fully appreciate that it may be too late to change anything regarding
command names. Also considering usermod and groupmod the command naming in
Unix / Linux appears to be a big mess anyway.
Thanks,
--
Martin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists