Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@fromme.com> To: gabor@FreeBSD.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?=) Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@FreeBSD.org>, Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 146209 for review Message-ID: <200807301211.m6UCBqUK088071@haluter.fromme.com> In-Reply-To: <488F4EB8.5010308@FreeBSD.org> from "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?=" at Jul 29, 2008 07:09:12 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gábor Kövesdán wrote: > Kris Kennaway escribió: > > Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=146209 > > > > > > Change 146209 by gabor@gabor_server on 2008/07/29 16:01:05 > > > > > > - Just handle some command line options as noop. They seem to be > > > rarely used based on the resources describing them. From now on > > > let's concentrate on the really practical features instead of > > > these ones. > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to "implement" options as NOPs unless > > they really are NOPs. This will just cause silent failure and/or > > script misbehaviour, which may be very hard to track down. > > I've been also thinking of this, and I'm still a bit unsure. It would be > bad if scripts failed due to this, but it would be also bad if scripts > didn't run because of a e.g. --side-by-side argument, which rarely (or > never?) makes any difference. How about printing a fat warning message on stderr that the option is unsupported and ignored, and then continue normally? Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, Bunsenstr. 13, 81735 Muenchen, Germany ``We are all but compressed light'' (Albert Einstein)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200807301211.m6UCBqUK088071>