1 |
On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:27:11 -0700 |
2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen |
5 |
> <bernalex@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > Looks OK. Although I'm not a fan of the proposed change. Changes |
8 |
> > like these make scripts a tiny bit more tedious. If you have a |
9 |
> > bunch of --autounmask stuff in your script, you can now just do |
10 |
> > --autounmask=n and turn it all off. This means you'll have to turn |
11 |
> > off more stuff. And --autounmask-continue is supposed to be used |
12 |
> > "with great care" anyway, so I think it's fine to demand users to |
13 |
> > write --autounmask too. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Yeah, we can go the other way and make --autounmask=n trigger a |
16 |
> warning message when --autounmask-continue is also in the options. My |
17 |
> main goal is to prevent confusion in this case. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
Yeah, I prefer this over --autounmask-coninue automatically setting |
21 |
autunmask to True. |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |