Hello mark,
On Sunday October 05 2014 21:10, you wrote to me:
ml> while i applaude ERRFLAGS operations, i do not like it because it
ml> forces approved flags... even in "do nothing" mode the operator of
ml> said tool has to deal with the so-called "errors"... U flags, in
ml> particular, were never supposed to be "approved" and then there's the
ml> possibility of experimental flags which generally start as U flags and then
ml> may be moved to non-U flags...
When citisizing something one should know what one is taling about. When I
mentioned ERRFLAGS could easely be configured to do "nothing", I did not mean
run it in check mode.
This configuration file will make it do "nothing".
BAUDDEFAULT 9600
BAUDRATE 300 1200 2400 4800 9600 14400 16800 19200 28800 33600
FLAGS *
USER *
ml> this then seems to become a political problem because some *C may not
ml> approve of said flag while others might... thus we end up mixing
ml> politics with technical aspects...
Once we had an IC and flags had to be IC approved...
ml> this is not a GoodThing<tm> and it wasn't when ERRFLAGS was introduced even
ml> though it gave the possibility of conformance it was
ml> and has been used as a political tool instead of a technical tool...
Your opinion.... It is not shared by the majority of the sysops in the zone
where the nodelist is cleaned up by ERRFLAGS
Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)
|
