[PATCH] ui: optionally quiesce ssl verification warnings

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Mon Apr 9 16:29:01 CDT 2012


On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 14:06 -0700, Steven Stallion wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 12:22 -0700, Steven Stallion wrote:
> >> Gotcha, I'll revert that bit. As for the option, I'm at a loss for
> >> something that conveys both issues - the release being too old and the
> >> fact we are quiescing cert verification. Should report_unverified
> >> stand? Would report_tooold be better? I'd almost rather keep
> >> report_unverified and then update the documentation to state that it
> >> only affects older versions of Python (along with any other warnings
> >> that folks may want).
> >
> > I suspect Plan 9 users are self-selected to be smarter and more
> > detail-oriented than the average developer, who is willfully blind to
> > both the subtleties of error messages and docs.
> >
> > If there's any chance that a sloppy reading of the option description
> > can result in someone thinking it might silence their pesky SSL error
> > messages, we'll get thousands of people reporting that it doesn't work.
> > So both the option name and the description need to be unambiguously
> > about disabling the "too old" warnings.
> >
> > Of course, "report_tooold" is its own sort of horror: what mnemonic
> > tells you if/where to use the "_"? A while ago, I set down the rule on
> > option naming:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/6zc57jfwnpgpffgq
> 
> I was attempting to match report_untrusted, but I agree - underscores
> are evil :) How about reportoldssl?

Sure.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.




More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list