From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 5 11:05:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15C3216A4BF; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456F143FF7; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:05:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.dougb.net (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23](untrusted sender)) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003090518051001300rkhmre>; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 18:05:10 +0000 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 11:05:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: "Daniel C. Sobral" In-Reply-To: <3F58B8B7.30107@tcoip.com.br> Message-ID: <20030905110128.Y8003@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <42548.1062488547@critter.freebsd.dk> <20030902004917.S6074@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3F58B8B7.30107@tcoip.com.br> Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Alexey Dokuchaev cc: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/rescue/rescue Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 18:05:13 -0000 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