Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:17:19 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Jason Helfman <jgh@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Proposal: further OptionsNG improvements Message-ID: <20130619061719.GD61109@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAMuy=%2BiA174035jZ_dx30ODOF1pfBh=-Hqq7Q6cx3AvRbNDitw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20130618160037.GA26677@regency.nsu.ru> <op.wyvvztj134t2sn@tech304.office.supranet.net> <20130618171253.GA93721@FreeBSD.org> <CAMuy=%2BiA174035jZ_dx30ODOF1pfBh=-Hqq7Q6cx3AvRbNDitw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Jason Helfman wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:56:07AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > > > So we just got done porting most of the tree to a new options syntax > > > and now we want to change it again? :-) > > > > Yeah, why not? ;-) > > > > I've discussed that idea before with bapt@ on IRC; there is absolutely > > no reasons why we should not use now-free nice, short OPTIONS knob again. > > Perhaps your proposal would carry more weight, feedback and/or testing > results if it included a patch and an example port with the modified values > for your new idea. Surely, patch would be the next step. > This has been quiet successful in the recent past with bapt's proposals for > options, uses, etc. Except that sometimes I think they are not being discussed enough prior to commit. ;-) ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130619061719.GD61109>