From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 7 22:04:23 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18AB0A55; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 22:04:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdccac.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.202]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4731D61; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 22:04:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053E03B805B; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 14:04:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dreadnaught (ip68-100-185-59.dc.dc.cox.net [68.100.185.59]) (Authenticated sender: trhodes@fbsdsecure.org) by homiemail-a96.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 549C53B8059; Sat, 7 Dec 2013 14:04:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:04:19 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: Eitan Adler Subject: Re: svn commit: r259058 - head/usr.bin/bc Message-Id: <20131207170419.124ea16e.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: References: <201312070627.rB76RtGr022954@svn.freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; x86_64-unknown-freebsd9.2) 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, src-committers@freebsd.org, delphij@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 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: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 22:04:23 -0000 On Sat, 7 Dec 2013 01:44:19 -0500 Eitan Adler wrote: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Xin LI 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. It should be documented as a do-nothing option. -- Tom Rhodes