reminder: undocumented options not allowed
abartlet at samba.org
Thu Oct 10 00:56:27 MDT 2013
On Wed, 2013-10-09 at 09:48 +0200, Björn JACKE wrote:
> after I just saw that we have a very usefull parameter
> spoolss: architecture = ...
> that not even most of the developers know about, I want to remind that we
> discussed and decided the policy that ALL new options (parametric or not) have
> to be documented in the man pages.
> Also if there is not a reason to make an option parametric (like for vfs
> modules) then the option should be a real option, that is also printed out by
> testparm -v.
> As a result of that policy, a review+ should NOT be granted if the
> corresponding man page entry is not added at the same time.
I don't remember this discussion, but originally the distinction between
these 'parametric' options and real options (aside from vfs modules) was
to enable tweaks to be inserted into points in the code, that would not
be first-class options, and should not be presented to users.
I certainly agree that some parametric options should in retrospect have
been real options, but if we remove the distinction, how should
developer-only tweaks be done?
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
More information about the samba-technical