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

Paul Gear paul at
Sun Sep 28 07:31:44 UTC 2003

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.

A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the users mailing list