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?