On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 01:21:57PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> I'm ok with -m/--member as well (like with --role only one role can be
> specified per switch instance so member, not membership, the later meaning,
> at least for me, the collective).
>
> That -m doesn't match --role-to is no worse than -g not matching --role, a
> short option seems worthwhile, and the -m (membership) mnemonic should be
> simple to pick-up.
>
> I don't see the addition of "-name" to the option name being beneficial.
>
> Yes, the standard doesn't use the "TO" prefix for "ROLE" - but taking that
> liberty for consistency here is very appealing and there isn't another SQL
> clause that it would be confused with.
+1 for "member". It might not be perfect, but IMO it's the clearest
option.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com