From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 30 12:32:27 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 8028E106567C; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:32:27 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F041065678; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:32:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@fromme.com) Received: from haluter.fromme.com (haluter.fromme.com [212.17.241.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81B88FC0C; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:32:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@fromme.com) Received: from haluter.fromme.com (irc_sucks@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by haluter.fromme.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id m6UCBrZi088073; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:53 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli@fromme.com) Received: (from olli@localhost) by haluter.fromme.com (8.13.4/8.12.9/Submit) id m6UCBqUK088071; Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme Message-Id: <200807301211.m6UCBqUK088071@haluter.fromme.com> To: gabor@FreeBSD.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?=) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:52 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <488F4EB8.5010308@FreeBSD.org> from "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?=" at Jul 29, 2008 07:09:12 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (haluter.fromme.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:11:53 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Kris Kennaway , Perforce Change Reviews , Max Khon Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 146209 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:32:27 -0000 Gábor Kövesdán wrote: > Kris Kennaway escribió: > > Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=146209 > > > > > > Change 146209 by gabor@gabor_server on 2008/07/29 16:01:05 > > > > > > - Just handle some command line options as noop. They seem to be > > > rarely used based on the resources describing them. From now on > > > let's concentrate on the really practical features instead of > > > these ones. > > > > I don't think it's a good idea to "implement" options as NOPs unless > > they really are NOPs. This will just cause silent failure and/or > > script misbehaviour, which may be very hard to track down. > > I've been also thinking of this, and I'm still a bit unsure. It would be > bad if scripts failed due to this, but it would be also bad if scripts > didn't run because of a e.g. --side-by-side argument, which rarely (or > never?) makes any difference. How about printing a fat warning message on stderr that the option is unsupported and ignored, and then continue normally? Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, Bunsenstr. 13, 81735 Muenchen, Germany ``We are all but compressed light'' (Albert Einstein)