But what if we didn't need the option in the first place?
(i.e. the workaround code?)...
Wouldn't it make for a cleaner implementation to not add a hack on top
of a hack?
I'm a perfectionist -- just just a "it'll do" type...that's why I tend
to persist.
Though if you aren't interested, you aren't interested...
What name did you choose anyway?
I'm not sure why I should declare victory... It's not about a
battle...it's about doing the
best one can -- but there is no triumph ... of a over b. or such..
I don't find such to ever be a valuable attitude (though many people
engage in
'win/lose' stuff).
I prefer not to.
I think the above reasons are partly why I get misinterpreted at times...
(that and the seemingly opposite 'lack of attention to detail -- a case of
overfocusing on one part of a problem (or the whole problem) and therefore
missing pieces...it happens. I don't feel like I won because you
didn't feel
good about adding the option even though you got to make it a silly name.
I don't think you felt good about adding the option, but assuaged
yourself with
naming it something belligerent to users rather than descriptively and
neutrally,
(something I don't think appropriate in a user interface of the sort
samba presents),
which really -- did that make you feel 'ok' with adding the option?
If not, I didn't win. I feel that I failed to communicate with you.
But that's me and my warped definitions...
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 03:37:11PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
I would like to put forth a possible alternative for consideration
(perhaps a bit late in the game), though perhaps a goal for a release in
the near future. Better to say someting that be accused later of saying
nothing...
Linda, you're flogging a dead horse. The code you wanted is in, even
though it has a name you don't like. Declare victory and move on.
Jeremy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
