You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
PgDBF has way too many command line options. For every option, there's another corresponding version to turn it off.
Should we have a one-time backward-incompatible release to turn it off? Maybe bump the current release to version 1.0 and make 2.0 the incompatible cleanup? Or maybe this just isn't a big deal and should be left as-is?
Any opinions would be appreciated!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
"PgDBF has way too many command line options. For every option, there's another corresponding version to turn it off."
<...>
Agreed.
"Should we have a one-time backward-incompatible release to turn it off? Maybe bump the current release to version 1.0 and make 2.0 the incompatible cleanup? <...>"
This is a good idea (make this current release 1.0), but if it will take significant development time then forget it and we will live with the 500 cmd line options. ;-)
On Aug 30, 2013, at 10:10 AM, kevinrsalisbury [email protected] wrote:
"PgDBF has way too many command line options. For every option, there's another corresponding version to turn it off."
<...>
Agreed.
"Should we have a one-time backward-incompatible release to turn it off? Maybe bump the current release to version 1.0 and make 2.0 the incompatible cleanup? <...>"
This is a good idea (make this current release 1.0), but if it will take significant development time then forget it and we will live with the 500 cmd line options. ;-)
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
PgDBF has way too many command line options. For every option, there's another corresponding version to turn it off.
Should we have a one-time backward-incompatible release to turn it off? Maybe bump the current release to version 1.0 and make 2.0 the incompatible cleanup? Or maybe this just isn't a big deal and should be left as-is?
Any opinions would be appreciated!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: