[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #6110 [Tor Client]: Log warnings: Control[Port/ListenAddress], Socks[port/listenaddress], etc
#6110: Log warnings: Control[Port/ListenAddress], Socks[port/listenaddress], etc
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: grarpamp | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone: Tor: unspecified
Component: Tor Client | Version: Tor: 0.2.3.16-alpha
Keywords: | Parent:
Points: | Actualpoints:
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Changes (by nickm):
* milestone: Tor: 0.2.3.x-final => Tor: unspecified
Comment:
I'm inclined to call this wontfix -- I don't think there's anything
inherently wrong with log messages over 80 characters.
The presumption that user who set ill-considered options have done so
after reading and considering the documentation hasn't been borne out
through experience: many of the warnings you list were added in response
to good-intentioned users who had begun doing the unwise thing they
recommend against... and then promoting it to others.
Right now, this is the best balance I know how to strike. On one side is
the safety-scissors way that would forbid experts from doing something
that's occasionally legitimate simply because it's usually a bad idea. On
the other side is the oldschool-unix way of assuming that everyone who
says "rm -rf *" deserves what they get. I don't like either option there.
That said, if there's a better alternative, or a good way to make the
messages shorter, that would be fine by me.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/6110#comment:2>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs