Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-12 Thread Micah Cowan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Tony Godshall wrote: > [Jim] >> Well, we need the plugin architecture anyway. There are some planned >> features (JavaScript and MetaLink support being the main ones) that have >> no business in Wget proper, as far as I'm concerned, but are inarguabl

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-12 Thread Jim Wright
I don't want this to spiral down to Micah bashing. He has brought a lot of good energy to the project, and gotten things moving forward nicely. Thanks. I know of instances where this option would be useful for me, and others have chipped in. I think we all agree it isn't perfect and there is no

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-12 Thread Tony Godshall
... > > I guess I'd like to see compile-time options so people could make a > > tiny version for their embedded system, with most options and all > > documentation stripped out, and a huge kitchen-sink all-the-bells > > version and complete documentation for the power user version. I > > don't thi

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Micah Cowan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Jim Wright wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Micah Cowan wrote: > >> It's not really about this option, it's about a class of options. I'm in >> the unenviable position of having to determine whether small patches >> that add options are sufficiently us

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Jim Wright
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Micah Cowan wrote: > It's not really about this option, it's about a class of options. I'm in > the unenviable position of having to determine whether small patches > that add options are sufficiently useful to justify the addition of the > option. Adding one new option/rc com

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Micah Cowan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Tony Godshall wrote: > ... >> I have, yes. And yes, it's a very small patch. The issue isn't so much >> about the extra code or code maintenance; it's more about extra >> documentation, and avoiding too much clutter of documentation and lists >> of o

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Tony Godshall
On 10/11/07, Tony Godshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... > > I have, yes. And yes, it's a very small patch. The issue isn't so much > > about the extra code or code maintenance; it's more about extra > > documentation, and avoiding too much clutter of documentation and lists > > of options/rc-co

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Tony Godshall
... > I have, yes. And yes, it's a very small patch. The issue isn't so much > about the extra code or code maintenance; it's more about extra > documentation, and avoiding too much clutter of documentation and lists > of options/rc-commands. I'm not very picky about adding little > improvements to

Re: anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Micah Cowan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Tony Godshall wrote: > On 10/11/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> Tony Godshall wrote: >>> On 10/10/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My current impression is that thi

anyone look at the actual patch? anyone try it? [Re: working on patch to limit to "percent of bandwidth"]

2007-10-11 Thread Tony Godshall
On 10/11/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Tony Godshall wrote: > > On 10/10/07, Micah Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> My current impression is that this is a useful addition for some limited > >> scenarios, but not particularly