On 04/03/2012 09:04 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
... > it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally) > "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you. ... > *undocumented* option '!hack!info-in-builddir' (whose name should > made it clear that it is not meant for public consumption). So will this be called a hack forever, or will the naming be revisited before a release? IMO, either the feature is sensible, and there doesn't seem to be a good reason other users couldn't also use it, and hence it should get a non-hackish name and be documented; or it isn't sensible, and then it shouldn't exist. Why the second-class treatment? -- Pedro Alves
