On 02/13/2014 11:21 PM, Francesco Chemolli wrote: > > 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 > > ?
No objections from me. My personal preference is not to add new command-line options unless really necessary, but I can also see the reasoning behind walking away from -N that some associate with "No". Cheers, Alex.
