Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:09:12 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?= <gabor@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 146209 for review Message-ID: <488F4EB8.5010308@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <488F4B1A.3000207@FreeBSD.org> References: <200807291601.m6TG1FXh039193@repoman.freebsd.org> <488F4B1A.3000207@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. I've played with the options a bit and a lot of them made no difference in the output neither with normal diff nor with context diff nor with unified diff. Maybe the best way to investigate what are they for would be to dig deeply in the GNU code, which is a mess. I haven't even found info about them on Google, thus I don't think they worth the effort. My mentor added to CC. Best, -- Gabor Kovesdan EMAIL: gabor@FreeBSD.org WWW: http://www.kovesdan.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?488F4EB8.5010308>