[5572] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Renaming "afslocker" to "attach" for non-Athena OpenAFS 1.4.1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Heather Anne Harrison)
Fri Aug 11 09:30:52 2006
Message-ID: <20060811093046.byx60mx1un4kc4sc@webmail.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:30:46 -0400
From: Heather Anne Harrison <aurora@MIT.EDU>
To: William Cattey <wdc@mit.edu>
Cc: openafs-release@mit.edu, release-team@mit.edu,
Alex T Prengel
<alexp@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <fa3401403bfa69a024b625e70074d501@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1;
format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score:
X-Spam-Flag: NO
There will still be legacy users of the old version around for
awhile, so we can't necessarily proceed quite as simply as you
suggest.
> 2. Revise the detach stock answer.
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/answer.php?id=7017) to say "Yes." or just
> delete it.
Actually, we probably just want to add a note that as of 1.4.1
there is one. Just saying "yes" would really confuse people
with older versions.
> 3. Revise the Install doc
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/article.php?id=7297): rewrite penultimate
> bullet item to call it "attach" and say it is of similar
> functionality to "attach as provided by Athena".
Doable.
> 4. Revise the Getting Started doc
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/article.php?id=7754): rewrite section
> "Navigating and afslocker" to make attach canon.
Doable
> 5. Revise AFS at MIT: An Introduction
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/article.php?id=6845):
> a. Change 4 instances of "attach or afslocker" to "attach"
> b. Rewrite Navigation Shortcuts to delete "afslocker" references and
> to detail any differences between Athena and non-Athena attach.
This one's more complicated because it's a generic doc that needs
to still support legacy users. We'll have to carefully edit to
clarify which versions have what -- unless we're willing to
write off users who don't upgrade.
Let me know when to make which changes.
Heather Anne
aurora@mit.edu
Quoting William Cattey <wdc@MIT.EDU>:
> Below, jdreed makes a case for renaming the "afslocker" script we
> ship with non-Athena OpenAFS to "attach", and adding a "detach"
> script. The rationale is that our attach does most of what Athena
> attach does, and there is value to harmonizing the platforms.
>
> I have run this by Greg Hudson and he "sees no big pitfalls".
>
> I'm still hoping for a go-live of OpenAFS 1.4.1 for early next week.
> I THINK we can make this change and still go live then.
>
> Here is my inventory of what's needed:
>
> 1. Revise the installer (again).
> a. rename afslocker to attach
> b. add detach
> c. confirm installer still works after changes.
> d. confirm attach and detach function
> 2. Revise the detach stock answer.
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/answer.php?id=7017) to say "Yes." or just
> delete it.
> 3. Revise the Install doc
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/article.php?id=7297): rewrite penultimate
> bullet item to call it "attach" and say it is of similar
> functionality to "attach as provided by Athena".
> 4. Revise the Getting Started doc
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/article.php?id=7754): rewrite section
> "Navigating and afslocker" to make attach canon.
> 5. Revise AFS at MIT: An Introduction
> (http://itinfo.mit.edu/article.php?id=6845):
> a. Change 4 instances of "attach or afslocker" to "attach"
> b. Rewrite Navigation Shortcuts to delete "afslocker" references and
> to detail any differences between Athena and non-Athena attach.
>
> Next steps:
>
> 1. Get sign-off from Bob Lang, Alex Prengel, and Heather Anne that
> doing this is OK.
> 2. Get sign-off from jdreed that the change can be made to the installer.
> 3. Milestone: change is made to the installer.
> 4. The other 4 revision tasks are done.
>
> Bob, Alex, Heather Anne: What say you?
>
> -wdc
>
> "Like my father before me, I shall remain 5 years old till the day I die!"
>
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Reed wrote:
>
>> This is why I was wondering if we want to just call "afslocker"
>> attach, to eliminate confusion, since it now mostly does everything
>> attach does. I can easily add a "detach" command if we want one,
>> which may be smarter that telling people to remove the symlink
>> (especially if they're stupid and use a command which may follow the
>> symlink and delete files in the locker)
>
>
