+1… I don't think we should worry about overlaps and reversals in 2.2, just in trunk. So none/unlimited/#>0 for MaxRanges sounds good in both trunk and 2.2
On Sep 6, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Sep 6, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Eric Covener wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Rich Bowen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> e.g. MaxRanges none | 0 (none) | unlimited | n>=1 >>>> 0 means unlimited - this is consistent across all of our configuration >>>> directives. Please let's not change that here. It's what folks expect it >>>> to mean. Let's not surprise them. >>> >>> How about rejecting 0 if it's too loaded/ambiguous? Accept >>> "unlimited", "none" and n>0 ? >>> >> >> Sounds good… that allows for unlimited and none to be added >> to trunk w/o changing anything in 2.2 > > Just to make sure we're on the same page -- MaxRanges was not released > yet in 2.2, so we can also update this in 2.2 to avoid confusion over > "0" and the inability to set unlimited. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected] >
