From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.90.92.18 with SMTP id p18cs161165agb; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.30.131 with SMTP id u3mr1566731qac.175.1254849404615; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [205.234.109.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 32si8829718qyk.34.2009.10.06.10.16.44; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=205.234.109.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [127.0.0.1]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5841818582F8; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:16:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from entry.masanjin.net (masanjin.net [209.20.72.13]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B27D718582DE for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:16:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from w by entry.masanjin.net with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MvDeD-0007bQ-5X for sup-talk@rubyforge.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:16:25 -0700 From: William Morgan To: sup-talk In-reply-to: <1254417826-sup-6584@yoom.home.cworth.org> References: <1254178611-sup-369@yoom.home.cworth.org> <1254416783-sup-5518@masanjin.net> <1254417826-sup-6584@yoom.home.cworth.org> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:16:20 -0700 Message-Id: <1254849104-sup-6471@masanjin.net> User-Agent: Sup/git Subject: Re: [sup-talk] [PATCH] Add new :crypto_default configuration option. X-BeenThere: sup-talk@rubyforge.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: User & developer discussion of Sup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Errors-To: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Reformatted excerpts from Carl Worth's message of 2009-10-01: > What makes a hook preferable over a configuration option? I would like to support everyone's crazy desires, and a hook is worth a thousand configuration options. In this case, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone wants to automatically determine the crypto setting based on the recipient, or based on the message body. A hook would allow that. > 2. Hooks are not supported forever, in which case users may find that > things just start working when upgrading. I am fine with this. Users be damned! (Or at least, required to read the changelog.) > Neither of those seem options look nice to me, and both seem easy to > avoid with configuration options. How so? Configuration options can change just as easily. > If the plan is to go with (1) I'm concerned that I don't see sup > shipping documentation for the current possible hooks. (This applies > to configuration options too though. I think the maintainer should > reject patches that add either without also adding documentation to > the standard list.[*]) sup -l is supposed to produce all the hook documentation you'd need, assuming a reasonable knowledge of Ruby. -- William _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list sup-talk@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk