Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:10:30 -0700 From: Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org> To: Marc Balmer <marc@msys.ch> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, mbr@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r195200 - in head/usr.sbin: . wake Message-ID: <4A4A7F46.2070904@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <0E6D4FB2-A485-40ED-A856-ACC311A90EFE@msys.ch> References: <200906301851.n5UIpNJQ089171@svn.freebsd.org> <20090630.133608.-1703974521.imp@bsdimp.com> <0E6D4FB2-A485-40ED-A856-ACC311A90EFE@msys.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marc Balmer wrote:
>
> Am 30.06.2009 um 21:36 schrieb M. Warner Losh:
>
>> wake really is too generic a name for this. Why didn't the wol port
>> get committed anyway, it seems to be better than this...
>
> wake is a short, mnemonic and imperative name that describes what the
> command does. It is exactly the same command as in NetBSD.
And you're conveniently ignoring the "discussion" that took place after
the netbsd drive-by.
Sam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A4A7F46.2070904>