W dniu sob, 03.03.2018 o godzinie 13∶08 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller napisał: > > > > > > On Sat, 03 Mar 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > > It seems counter-intuitive for a simple binary option to require an > > > argument. What is wrong with specifying -d to enable the option, > > > and simply not specifying it to disable? > > What is wrong is that a number of developers have historically not > > specified the option and broke stuff. Plus, it's infinitely silly to > > require people to explicitly specify the option to enable required > > behavior. > > My remark was about syntax, not about semantics. "-d y" and "-d n" > instead of "-d" and "(nothing)" is a crappy user interface. > > Maybe unify things into "--include-profiles=<stable,dev,exp>" (with a > comma separated list of "stable", "dev", and "exp") or > "--include-profile-level=<n>" with n=0 for stable, n=1 for stable+dev, > etc.? >
I don't really want to go into this. As far as I'm concerned, I can leave defunct '-d' and just check dev profiles unconditionally. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
