Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:08:48 +0200 From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> To: M. Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: dougb@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC Message-ID: <D1B03E54-A2FD-470D-9ED9-87A26EAF2A4E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100113.150435.650865766805848595.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <201001131515.08602.jhb@freebsd.org> <4B4E2ECA.90905@FreeBSD.org> <201001131633.09669.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100113.150435.650865766805848595.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 Jan, 2010, at 24:04 , M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <201001131633.09669.jhb@freebsd.org> > John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> 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. > : > >=20 > : > > You really think users do not already know to look in manpages = or NOTES to=20 > : > > find out more details about kernel options?=20 > : >=20 > : > That's not what I said. > :=20 > : <quote> > : I don't think that users would [..] know to look in NOTES for more = information=20 > : about an option that is [...] in GENERIC. > : </quote> > :=20 > : That seems really straight forward to me, or my English isn't good. = I do=20 > : think users "would know to look in NOTES for more information about = an option=20 > : that is in GENERIC". >=20 > Agreed. That's why I did what I did: I conformed to the usual = practice. >=20 > : > > Put=20 > : > > another way, what makes 'INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE' sufficiently = special that it=20 > : > > deserves special treatment relative to other kernel options? > : >=20 > : > 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. > :=20 > : I think a better change would be to just change the default behavior = of=20 > : config(8) to do the reasonable thing. >=20 > -C should be the default, and we should invent a new > '--smaller-saved-config' option. >=20 > : > 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? > :=20 > : What is the overwhelming horror about keeping a file readable and = allowing=20 > : users to find extended documentation for INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in the = same place=20 > : that they find extended documentation about every other kernel = option? >=20 > Yes. That's why I did what I did: to keep things readable. >=20 > : > 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. > :=20 > : I think adding comments that merely redirect the users to further=20 > : documentation only serves to obfuscate. Left unchecked this = approach will=20 > : render files such as GENERIC with a very low signal-to-noise ratio = making it=20 > : harder to parse in a "big picture" way. >=20 > Yes. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Warner Hello, I just want to add a user's point of view : To me INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE sounds like the whole config file will be included, not just the output after preprocessing. So I was thinking about something like two different options, one "INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE" which includes the whole file with comments, and the other to be just "INCLUDE_CONFIG". I think these would be pretty self-explanatory. Yes, it adds another kernel option, but having options to kernel options looks even more cryptic :) -- Regards, Niki=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D1B03E54-A2FD-470D-9ED9-87A26EAF2A4E>