From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 13 20:36:26 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7041065697 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:36:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B570E8FC25 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:36:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15519 invoked by uid 399); 13 Jan 2010 20:36:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.110?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 13 Jan 2010 20:36:24 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4B4E2ECA.90905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:36:26 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <20100112.174326.337739863389869251.imp@bsdimp.com> <4B4E1586.7090102@FreeBSD.org> <201001131515.08602.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201001131515.08602.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INCLUDE_CONFIG_FILE in GENERIC X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:36:26 -0000 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. > 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. 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? 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. Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso