31 Mar
2011
31 Mar
'11
2:38 p.m.
hey horms,
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:13:31 +0900, Simon Horman <horms(a)verge.net.au> wrote:
the confusing naming reflects a misunderstanding on my
part
at the time that I implemented the options - quite some time ago now.
I apologise for that.
I sort of thought that was what was happening. I certainly know that
I've been similarly confused in the past, so it rung true with my
experience.
I am happy to try and make things less confusing, the
documentation
is an easy target for that, but I am a little reluctant
to make changes to the code that are not backwards compatible.
That is understandable, I certainly dont think that breaking backwards
compatibility is the right way to go either. I think documentation is a
good place to clarify, as the pedantry in naming would be less of an
issue if it was clearly spelled out that the TLS options are actually
STARTTLS. In fact the perdition documentation is really well done and
should be commended. This is more or less a small nit pick.
So a new set of configuration options is fine by me so
long
as they don't conflict with the old ones which I would prefer
to leave as-is. Would that work for you?
Absolutely, that makes the most sense!
micah