Re: [RFC/WIP PATCH 05/11] transport: add infrastructure to support a protocol version number
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:01:50PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> > Interesting choice for the short option ("-v" would be nice, but
> > obviously it is taken). Do we want to delay on claiming the
> > short-and-sweet 'y' until we are sure this is something people will use
> > a lot? In an ideal world, it is not (i.e., auto-upgrade and other tricks
> > become good enough that nobody bothers to specify it manually).
> [...]
> Or do you rather hint on dropping the short option at all, and just having NULL
> in the field?Yes, that's what I was hinting.
-Peff