Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> writes: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:06:16AM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> Diego Biurrun <di...@biurrun.de> 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. -- Måns Rullgård m...@mansr.com _______________________________________________ libav-devel mailing list libav-devel@libav.org https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
