Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> e...@thyrsus.com said:
> > But doing the right thing is better than a switch. And the test is a cost
> > that only needs to be paid once.
>
> I think your no-switch approach is good for things where the choice is A or
> B,
> like picking the right baud rate.
>
> But this isn't one of those cases. This is an X doesn't work. Did the user
> intend that or is something broken? In the obscure case where IPv6 is not
> enabled on the system, I'm happy to add a "-4" to ntp.conf to tell the system
> I expect that.
*blink* Then why did you say you'd leave this one to me as though you were
mostly
indifferent to the alternatives?
> I've got the code working, but it also ignores lots of other cases where I
> want it to crash. I should be able to fix that, just more code and I need to
> get the internal interface right.
>
> I also disagree with your only need to test once. If we only need to test
> once, why are we maintaining a complicated test package? I agree that this
> sort of code is not likely to break due to system upgrades so the need for
> continual testing is not high. On the other hand, it would be nice to test
> it
> on all OSes.
We maintain a complicared test package because we have a lot of things to
verify that are much less stable than the UDP API. :-)
I was sloppy. I should have said once per platform.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
