Hi,
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > Well, if you don't want to enable a number of options, it's still better to
> > hide them completely. There are number of options by reorganizing the debug
> > menu a little, it only depends if we're talking here are about a -mm only
> > crutch or something which might be useful to more than a handful of people.
> > A few extra config options are not really a problem as long as they are
> > logically grouped together (instead of having to enable random options all
> > over the place).
>
> How is the user meant to know which of your config options a particular
> option is hidden under?
I don't quite understand where you want to go with this question. What do
you consider an easy to find option? We have thousands of config options,
they have to be organized somehow, so they are always hidden somewhere.
Currently the debug menu is more a random collection of options, with a
little organization it actually can make things easier to find, while
still allowing a simple menu for the occasional user and an advanced menu.
> Seems there are two isses - whether the naming is meaningful or not,
> and whether you want to hide options under other options,or just flip
> defaults ... does that sound correct?
With my suggestion I was more concentrating on the latter (the general
organisation of the menu options) than the actual wording.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
