Re: More problem with scripts

[2002-01-03 23:33] Peter Eisentraut said:
| > Brent Verner wrote:
| > > [2002-01-03 14:19] Bruce Momjian said:
| > > |
| > > | Actually, we can just do:

| > > +1
| > >
| > > I can't see a reason to /not/ fix something this simple for the 7.2
| > > release. In general, I think it's best to fix things like this[1]
| > > "on sight" as opposed to queueing them in TODO where they /might/ sit
| > > untouched through another release cycle.
| > >
| > > [1] meaning problems that require little effort to fix, and whose
| > > solutions are /very/ localized.
| >
| > OK, one more +1 and I will get to it.
|
| -4

Hey, no ballot stuffing ;-)

| 1: It's not a regression from 7.1. Anything else is too late.

IMO, this is not a valid reason to /not/ fix _this problem_. Taken
to an extreme, this reasoning would allow any number of fatal bugs to
remain in 7.2 because they also existed in 7.1. Given the imminent
release, this position is valid even for a number of non-fatal bugs,
but not this one.

| 2: The issue does not cause problems if you stick to the documented syntax
| and it
| does not cause hazard if you don't.

First half correct. It is arguable whether or not the following
would be considered a hazard or not. Is unexpected behavior
hazardous?

$ createdb whatiwanted whatigot

| 3: The patch is wrong, because showing the usage screen in case of an error
| is
| inappropriate.

Perhaps a more suitable message similar to the "invalid option" error
should be printed prior to exit, but this is not as important as
enforcing proper/documented use of the script(s).

cheers.
brent

--
"Develop your talent, man, and leave the world something. Records are
really gifts from people. To think that an artist would love you enough
to share his music with anyone is a beautiful thing." -- Duane Allman