Re: gratuitous change blocks upgrade to 0.2.2.15-alpha :-(

[Sebastian Hahn <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 11, 2010, at 3:47 AM, Sebastian Hahn wrote:

> On Sep 10, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> > In any case, Sebastian started a trac entry for this one:
> > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/1929
> > wherein he starts out by listing a reason that we shouldn't fix it.
> >
> > Please add more pros and cons to the trac entry.
>
> it'd be nice if further discussion could be moved to the bug
> report. Nick had a nice idea how to solve the situation
> without breaking our controllers. It would be great to get
> feedback on this (positive or negative) so please do reply
> with your thoughts.
>
> Patches for the documentation are also welcome, if they
> help to clarify the situation.
>
> Thanks
>
> Sebastian

To let those know who didn't start monitoring the bug
report, as of 851255170 we implemented a new feature
to allow using multiple lines when specifying a torrc entry.

To indicate that a line ends in the torrc but Tor should treat
the next line as if it belonged to the current line, use a
backslash at the end of the line. Comments inside such a
block are ignored.

To provide an example, here is what the new syntax might
look like (basically all previously valid torrcs should remain
valid):

    ExcludeNodes \
    # I don't like kittens
       lolcat1, \
    lolcat2 \
    # / I also don't like bunnies! I really hate them. \
       ,cutebunny, extracutebunny, \
    # and this node appeared on my mother's birthday
                          birthdaynode
    StrictNodes 1

I hope this is an acceptable solution for those who wanted
a change, and doesn't upset those that thought the old
behaviour was like it should be.

Sebastian
***********************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx with
unsubscribe or-talk    in the body. http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/