On Mon, 29 May 2017 08:27:11 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Alexander Berntsen > <berna...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Looks OK. Although I'm not a fan of the proposed change. Changes > > like these make scripts a tiny bit more tedious. If you have a > > bunch of --autounmask stuff in your script, you can now just do > > --autounmask=n and turn it all off. This means you'll have to turn > > off more stuff. And --autounmask-continue is supposed to be used > > "with great care" anyway, so I think it's fine to demand users to > > write --autounmask too. > > Yeah, we can go the other way and make --autounmask=n trigger a > warning message when --autounmask-continue is also in the options. My > main goal is to prevent confusion in this case. Yeah, I prefer this over --autounmask-coninue automatically setting autunmask to True. -- Brian Dolbec <dolsen>
