On 14 Feb 2014, at 06:31, Alex Rousskov <rouss...@measurement-factory.com> wrote:
> On 02/13/2014 03:47 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> Use of "-N" with no parameter produce an error. > > I do not think we have to break existing scripts (some of which may > still be working OK!). We can issue a deprecation warning but treat bare > -N as "-N foreground" or equivalent. > >> Perhapse making both -N and -X take parameters now? >> -N for the process daemonization, and -X for the debug ones TBD. > > We need to preserve the "no forking" or "monolith" behavior (i.e, the > current broken -N behavior). Please do not remove it while fixing -N. It > cannot be TBD. Setting debug_options via -X can be postponed, of course. > > Whether we use -N for all three modes or -N for the first two modes and > -X for the "no forking" debugging mode is not that important to me > personally, so I am not going to complicate things by supporting one or > the other :-). I know I'm the one who cares less about backwards compatibility among us, but.. what if we just deprecated -N and replaced it with something different, such as -m as in 'mode' -m daemon (default) -m foreground -m debug ? I agree with Alex that "no-" switches are harder to consistently understand. 2c. Kinkie
