From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 13 22:10:29 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C4B1065676; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:10:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34A088FC14; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:10:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o0DM3dAA096341; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:03:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 15:04:35 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20100113.150435.650865766805848595.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <201001131633.09669.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201001131515.08602.jhb@freebsd.org> <4B4E2ECA.90905@FreeBSD.org> <201001131633.09669.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, dougb@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:10:29 -0000 In message: <201001131633.09669.jhb@freebsd.org> John Baldwin writes: : On Wednesday 13 January 2010 3:36:26 pm Doug Barton wrote: : > On 1/13/2010 12:15 PM, John Baldwin wrote: : > > On Wednesday 13 January 2010 1:48:38 pm Doug Barton wrote: : > >> To address the other responses, Tom, sorry, your suggested text doesn't : > >> address my concern. John, I don't think that users would somehow : > >> magically know to look in NOTES for more information about an option : > >> that is already in GENERIC. : > > : > > You really think users do not already know to look in manpages or NOTES to : > > find out more details about kernel options? : > : > That's not what I said. : : : I don't think that users would [..] know to look in NOTES for more information : about an option that is [...] in GENERIC. : : : That seems really straight forward to me, or my English isn't good. I do : think users "would know to look in NOTES for more information about an option : that is in GENERIC". Agreed. That's why I did what I did: I conformed to the usual practice. : > > Put : > > another way, what makes 'INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE' sufficiently special that it : > > deserves special treatment relative to other kernel options? : > : > Because the default behavior (not including the actual file) for the : > option is contrary to user' reasonable expectation of how the option : > should work .... and now I'm repeating myself. : : I think a better change would be to just change the default behavior of : config(8) to do the reasonable thing. -C should be the default, and we should invent a new '--smaller-saved-config' option. : > Seriously, don't you have anything better to do than argue against : > including a comment in a config file? I know I do. What is the : > overwhelming horror that will arise here if there are more comments : > GENERIC than you deem to be absolutely necessary? : : What is the overwhelming horror about keeping a file readable and allowing : users to find extended documentation for INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in the same place : that they find extended documentation about every other kernel option? Yes. That's why I did what I did: to keep things readable. : > And yes, I read the part of your message that I snipped about "why do we : > have these documents if users don't read them?" The answer is, that's : > why I'm suggesting a comment that tells users what man page to read. : : I think adding comments that merely redirect the users to further : documentation only serves to obfuscate. Left unchecked this approach will : render files such as GENERIC with a very low signal-to-noise ratio making it : harder to parse in a "big picture" way. Yes. Basically, I'm annoyed too: Our users aren't idiots, and we shouldn't be treating them as such at every turn. If there are surprises with how INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE behaves, we should work to make it better, not paper over it with a comment. Warner