ack to the code, but I think we should name this as "ds-repl-diff" not "repl-diff.py". Would it be too much to ask to rename this?

ack to the code, but I think we should name this as "ds-repl-diff" not "repl-diff.py". Would it be too much to ask to rename this?

I don't mind renaming it, in fact I don't really like the current name anyway, but I'm not sure I like ds-repl-diff.py - too wordy and too hypheny, but perhaps it's the better option. Any other suggestions? :)

ack to the code, but I think we should name this as "ds-repl-diff" not "repl-diff.py". Would it be too much to ask to rename this?

I don't mind renaming it, in fact I don't really like the current name anyway, but I'm not sure I like ds-repl-diff.py - too wordy and too hypheny, but perhaps it's the better option. Any other suggestions? :)

Perhaps:

• ds-repldiff.py
• ds-replcheck.py
• ds-replcmp.py

ds-replcheck would be my preferred name. I don't think we should ship with file extensions on tools like this. :)

Changed it to "ds-replcheck"

6395357..9879ed7 master -> master

Moved man page to proper section, and added script to makefile

9879ed7..a96c91d master -> master

As I was going through all the RFEs being triaged and landed here. Sorry to add comment at this point.
It will be more appropriate if we change the name to "ds-repldiff.py", since we are trying to find the diff across different masters/consumers. The name "ds-replcheck" feels like you are checking if replication is working fine, but it seems no intent to compare the entries on different servers.

As I was going through all the RFEs being triaged and landed here. Sorry to add comment at this > point.
It will be more appropriate if we change the name to "ds-repldiff.py", since we are trying to find > the diff across different masters/consumers. The name "ds-replcheck" feels like you are checking
if replication is working fine, but it seems no intent to compare the entries on different servers.

I don't think the tool name is very important, or worth changing at this stage. We can argue the name of a tool all day long, but it doesn't really matter. It's the documentation that really matters in this case.

Does anyone else have any opinions on this?

I vote for ds-replcheck.py, it is the more general name and we can also add other options to this tool later.
and the diff is a check if replication is/was working

I vote for ds-replcheck.py, it is the more general name and we can also add other options to this tool later.
and the diff is a check if replication is/was working

Well ds-replcheck is what we are currently using in master branch (1.3.7), and I vote to keep it. The tool does much more than just "diffs", it "checks" all kinds of replication stats:

http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/repl-diff-tool-design.html (yes I know the design doc uses "diff" in the title)

But because of all these features in the tool I feel ds-replcheck is the more appropriate name.

commit 7d5c27ac57de91168a5ccd449229f56d67952a35
Author: Simon Pichugin spichugi@redhat.com
Date: Wed Feb 21 14:59:54 2018 +0100

Commit c2650f02 relates to this ticket

389-ds-base is moving from Pagure to Github. This means that new issues and pull requests
will be accepted only in 389-ds-base's github repository.

This issue has been cloned to Github and is available here:
- https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/2298

If you want to receive further updates on the issue, please navigate to the github issue
and click on subscribe button.

Thank you for understanding. We apologize for all inconvenience.