Upstart Cookbook

[Clint Byrum]

On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:32 -0700, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> More comments


> 
> 1.4 - the footnote here is [2], where is [1] ?
> 

As of right now, [1] is here:

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/cookbook/#id9

The auto numbering seems a bit odd, not sure why [1] is so far down in
the doc.

> 2.2 - the "indented block"s aren't indented
> 

"Fix Released" -- Though my fix may not be IE7 friendly (something with
margin's and pre in IE7 not working right).

> 3.1.2 - should be "NIH Utility Library" (qv. http://launchpad.net/libnih)
> 

Fix Released

> 4.1.1 & 4.1.2 - worth explaining the real difference between "task"
> and "service" here, perhaps? or later?
> 
> 4.2 - the footnote here is [7], where are [2] thru [6] ?! :p
> 
>     - you leap into "blocking" here, which is a very very core upstart
> concept, without explaining it
> 
> 4.2.1 - signal events are created with the --no-wait option to emit,
> there is no --emit option
> 
> 5.3 - this is basically all completely wrong ...
> 

Ouch, I see that now. Ok, I've rewritten this and the task section
completely.

> 5.4 - I wouldn't use the word "started" here, because it's easily
> confused with the event and the started event is emitted when a task
> is running not when it's finished
> 
>     - and your example is wrong
> 

Right, rewrote these entirely, including fixing the example to use
'stopped' with the task appropriately.

Here is the commit:

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~upstart-documenters/upstart-cookbook/trunk/revision/45

> 5.6 - one of the things you can do in "pre-start" is cancel the start!
> worth mentioning?
> 
> 5.8 - and the big feature of "pre-stop" is you can cancel the stop!
> worth mentioning?
> 

Added these reminders.

> 5.9 seems to run-in with the next paragraph
> 

Not sure what this means. Can you elaborate at all?

> 8.2.3 - worth a | sort in there?
> 
> 9.15 - "start on stopped mydb EXIT_SIGNAL=SEGV" ... ;-)
> 
> 9.39 - really script/exec ?  I'd just use exec there
> 
> 17 - that should read "Scott James Remnant (Google)" no?
> 

This begs the question, "what are we trying to convey here?"

I think we want to say "these people, in an official compacity for their
respective companies, contributed".

What about (Canonical, Google) ?