Barry K. Nathan wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:39:52PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote: > >>As the subject says, i think 'useNoSSLForPackages' is rather badly >>conceived. Whenever i see an option that has the word "No" or "Don't" >>in it, alarm bells ring in my head. >> >>This is a recipe for confusion. Can we get future versions of the >>option renamed to "useSSLForPackages"? > > > Is this really enough of a reason to break compatibility with old > config files? No, but it's a good reason to deprecate the badly-named options and provide new ones. It can be done in a backwards-compatible manner. -- Paul http://paulgear.webhop.net A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
Attachment:
pgp2v8QyAxtWn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
