| 1 |
On 07/01/2016 03:29 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote: |
| 2 |
> The patch itself looks OK, but I think that this option is a bad idea |
| 3 |
> and design, and that the extra complexity isn't warranted. I know |
| 4 |
> users have asked for something similar several times, but thankfully |
| 5 |
> the users aren't the developers. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It's an extremely useful option in certain contexts (especially |
| 8 |
continuous integration). I have a wrapper script that does this, but |
| 9 |
it's tricky to emulate this behavior with existing options, since |
| 10 |
without it there's no way to know whether or not the dependency |
| 11 |
calculation was completely successful (then you have to check if an |
| 12 |
config changes were made, apply them, and waste time repeating the |
| 13 |
dependency calculation all over again without knowing whether or not it |
| 14 |
will succeed). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The patch is really much less complex than I had imagined before I |
| 17 |
started writing it. I expect it to be quite maintainable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> But if you genuinely think this is a good idea, and someone else on |
| 20 |
> the team does too, I won't oppose it. We should make sure that we |
| 21 |
> strongly discourage its usage for regular users. Perhaps your |
| 22 |
> suggested manpage addition already does -- I don't know. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yeah, I think the warning message that I've put in the man patch is |
| 25 |
pretty good: |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> This option is intended to be used only with great caution, |
| 28 |
> since it is possible for it to make nonsensical configuration |
| 29 |
> changes which may lead to system breakage. Therefore, it is |
| 30 |
> advisable to use ---ask together with this option. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Thanks, |
| 33 |
Zac |
Archives