Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:48:56 -0700 From: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> To: Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, David Xu <bsddiy@163.net>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc Message-ID: <3AE85178.CBC4A45A@DougBarton.net> References: <200104260051.f3Q0pbv46632@earth.backplane.com> <20010426011144.BFE4D3E2A@bazooka.unixfreak.org> <20010426105202.A35022@canyon.nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:11:44PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> > Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> writes:
> > > Hmph. I don't see how it could hurt since it amounts to the
> > > same thing that it was doing before, but why bother in the first
> > > place? The original code was just fine.
> >
> > My guess is: for consistency. The documentation says to do it that
> > way, and not following that serves to confuse some newcomers (e.g.,
> > "The docs say to do it this way, but how come /etc/rc doesn't? Is
> > there something wrong with the way in the docs?"). This patch
> > actually closes a docs/ PR on the subject.
>
> That's exactly it. I talked to Jordan, who committed this stuff to
> /etc/rc in the first place, who said he was unaware that vnconfig could
> do the swapon itself, otherwise he would have used it.
I strongly agree with Nik on this. One of my philosophies for the rc*
files has been that they should be examples of best practice wherever
possible. If we can't agree that it's ok to change semantics of a command
when the outcomes are identical, we'll never get anything done around here.
:)
Doug
--
I need someone really bad. Are you really bad?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3AE85178.CBC4A45A>