On 07/01/2016 03:29 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> The patch itself looks OK, but I think that this option is a bad idea
> and design, and that the extra complexity isn't warranted. I know
> users have asked for something similar several times, but thankfully
> the users aren't the developers.

It's an extremely useful option in certain contexts (especially
continuous integration). I have a wrapper script that does this, but
it's tricky to emulate this behavior with existing options, since
without it there's no way to know whether or not the dependency
calculation was completely successful (then you have to check if an
config changes were made, apply them, and waste time repeating the
dependency calculation all over again without knowing whether or not it
will succeed).

The patch is really much less complex than I had imagined before I
started writing it. I expect it to be quite maintainable.

> But if you genuinely think this is a good idea, and someone else on
> the team does too, I won't oppose it. We should make sure that we
> strongly discourage its usage for regular users. Perhaps your
> suggested manpage addition already does -- I don't know.

Yeah, I think the warning message that I've put in the man patch is
pretty good:

> This option is intended to be used only with great caution,
> since it is possible for it to make nonsensical configuration
> changes which may lead to system breakage. Therefore, it is
> advisable to use ---ask together with this option.

Reply via email to