Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:05:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/rescue/rescue Makefile Message-ID: <20030905110128.Y8003@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <3F58B8B7.30107@tcoip.com.br> References: <42548.1062488547@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030902004917.S6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F58B8B7.30107@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >
> >
> >>NOATM and NOINET6 were preexisting options, and rather than start
> >>the "1.0 compatibility at any cost!" bikeshed I simply have propagated
> >>them to other relevant places.
> >
> >
> > The last few times this came up, the consensus was for WORD_SEPERATORS
> > in new options.
>
> I recall bde being in favour of respecting English rules, meaning
> NOOPTIONS. :-)
>
> So this consensus isn't at all all that consensual.
"Consensus" does not mean "Universal Agreement." The last few iterations
of this topic have shown that the majority of people who care prefer the
words to be seperated, and there are not technical reasons why the
seperators are damaging, or less desirable than not using them. (Note I
said TECHNICAL, not STYLISTIC.)
There comes a point when people need to just deal, and move on.
Endlessly rehashing bikesheds like this puts us in danger of going down
the road the IETF has been traveling lately, and we don't want that.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030905110128.Y8003>