Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 15:58:50 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Please, review my change to ipfw, I want to commit it :) Message-ID: <20150606154353.M91076@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <20150602214303.V91076@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <556C6CBB.5010803@FreeBSD.org> <20150602214303.V91076@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Lev, a further thought. I've seen melifaro's new comments, but can't comment on those except that we are agreed on really needing some usage examples. On Tue, 2 Jun 2015 22:39:40 +1000, Ian Smith wrote: > It would be nice if skip-immediate-action could be shortened, especially > where printed by ip_fw2.c .. skip-action may be enough? defer-action? This use of 'skip' bugs me in another way; it could easily be confused by some with skipto, just by use of the word. Various example rulesets actually use $skip as shorthand for 'skipto $somerule', for example. I think that 'defer' - put off to a later time, postpone - or perhaps less favourably but similar enough, 'delay', would provide clearer meaning here, especially if the deferred action is itself a 'skipto'. cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150606154353.M91076>