On Thursday 21 April 2005 19:07, Tony wrote:
> Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> > The question is what should we do for 1.10? Document the
> > unreadable names and cryptic values, and have to support
> > them until eternity?
>
> My vote is to change them to more reasonable syntax (as you suggested
> earlier
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I think removing them is a bad idea. Even if very few people use
> them, it good to have them. Personally, I've used --sslprotocol a
> couple of times. IMO, all these choices are what makes Linux
> console utils so powerful.
You're misunderstanding me: I'm not proposi
Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> The question is what should we do for 1.10? Document the
> unreadable names and cryptic values, and have to support
> them until eternity?
My vote is to change them to more reasonable syntax (as you suggested
earlier in the note) for 1.10 and include the new syntax in the
I remembered why I never documented the SSL options. Because they are
badly named, accept weird values, and I wanted to fix them. I felt
(and still feel) that documenting them would make them "official" and
force us to keep supporting them forever.
Here is the list, extracted from `w