Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 01:44:19 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> To: Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r259058 - head/usr.bin/bc Message-ID: <CAF6rxgmw%2BcjJUqVQUy2WyHbcS2-7od=4gQDK%2BL9%2BriVzX%2BZYwg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201312070627.rB76RtGr022954@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201312070627.rB76RtGr022954@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org> wrote: > Author: delphij > Date: Sat Dec 7 06:27:54 2013 > New Revision: 259058 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/259058 > > Log: > Remove mention of the compatibility option 'q', which is > intentionally undocumented and its only purpose is that > we do not bail out when used as a drop-in replacement of > a different implementation. As I mentioned in the reply to the PR this change goes in the wrong direction. We should instead document -q as a compatibility option. Undocumented flags, even as NOPS, are bugs. -- Eitan Adler Source, Ports, Doc committer Bugmeister, Ports Security teams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgmw%2BcjJUqVQUy2WyHbcS2-7od=4gQDK%2BL9%2BriVzX%2BZYwg>