Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:33:38AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:06:16AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 02:56:05PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> >> >> On 11/14/2012 02:38 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote: >> >> >> > Now the difference between "all" and "everything" seems arbitrary. >> >> >> > Why don't we just set clear semantics on what we call "parts" and >> >> >> > "components" or "components" and "subcomponents"? >> >> >> >> >> >> From an usability point of view you are not going to change that >> >> >> option, >> >> >> the best is to clarify it making so from reading --help you would not >> >> >> expect it to disable something it does not. >> >> > >> >> > The usability is what I am trying to fix here, among other things. >> >> > Having >> >> > both --disable-everything and --disable-all as options is a usability >> >> > nightmare. I'd have to look up which option did what myself in a few >> >> > weeks time after implementing them... >> >> > >> >> > So what's bad about --disable-components or --disable-subcomponents? >> >> > More importantly, what about those names is worse than what we have >> >> > right now: --disable-everything? >> >> >> >> For better or worse, we have --disable-everything now, and people are >> >> using it. Changing it to an equally arbitrary name will only make those >> >> people angry. >> > >> > I suspect that I am one of the main users of that option, but anyway.. >> > Your remark misses the context of my proposal, which does not eliminate >> > --disable-everything. >> >> It changes the meaning of it, which is even worse. > > The semantics of --disable-everything are broken to begin with, so this > hardly counts.
Broken how? -- Måns Rullgård [email protected] _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
