On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 00:20 +0100, Tom Hendrikx wrote: > Reviewing my previous suggestion, I mostly agree with the above, and > meant this too (but with wrong words). I meant to provide the user with > consistent behaviour for: > > 1) always exit with EX_OK, disregarding actual processing outcome or > errors (current default behaviour) > > 2) indicate ham/spam difference with EX_OK/EX_FAILURE (current > --exitcode behaviour) > > 3) all power (and responsibility) to the user (current > --no-safe-fallback behaviour, but with kludges removed) > Yes, that sounds like something I'd do.
> The recently added -X switch would also be too exotic for me, and be > removed again. > I'd go with 1=SPAM, 0=HAM plus checks skipped all reasons (i.e. --exitcode) for the default because it seems to work well in practice for production running and --no-fail-fallback (renamed to something like --extended-exit-codes / -x for testing as opposed to production operation). > Final result: simple, no > unexpected kludges, common scenarios facilitated out of the box, all > exotic scenarios available to the brave. > I think we're in agreement - see my last on the subject. As KAM says there's a window for changing options and option names in preparation for 3.4.0 I say have at it and good luck. Cheers, Martin
