Re: useNoSSLForPackages and other badly-conceived options (notice non-hijacked thread!)

[Paul Gear]

Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:39:52PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
> > As the subject says, i think 'useNoSSLForPackages' is rather badly
> > conceived.  Whenever i see an option that has the word "No" or "Don't"
> > in it, alarm bells ring in my head.
> >
> > This is a recipe for confusion.  Can we get future versions of the
> > option renamed to "useSSLForPackages"?
>
> Is this really enough of a reason to break compatibility with old
> config files?

No, but it's a good reason to deprecate the badly-named options and
provide new ones.  It can be done in a backwards-compatible manner.