[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: useNoSSLForPackages and other badly-conceived options (noticenon-hijacked thread!)



Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:39:52PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
> 
>>As the subject says, i think 'useNoSSLForPackages' is rather badly
>>conceived.  Whenever i see an option that has the word "No" or "Don't"
>>in it, alarm bells ring in my head.
>>
>>This is a recipe for confusion.  Can we get future versions of the
>>option renamed to "useSSLForPackages"?
> 
> 
> Is this really enough of a reason to break compatibility with old
> config files? 

No, but it's a good reason to deprecate the badly-named options and
provide new ones.  It can be done in a backwards-compatible manner.
-- 
Paul
http://paulgear.webhop.net

A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?

Attachment: pgp00046.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]