bogus bogotuning

[Jason A. Smith]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:12, Greg Louis wrote:
> As I've written before, most people would assume that an option would
> not be implemented unless it were in some way worth using.  Some would
> say the fun of experimenting with something I know is useless is worth
> badgering me about, obviously.  I disagree, obviously.  Writing code to
> implement an option and then writing a warning that says "doing this is
> useless" doesn't appeal to me.  It doesn't even make sense to me.

You are assuming what others will assume by the presence of this
option.  Do you remember the old saying associated with ass-u-me? 
Perhaps you should also try to assume what the user might think when
they see the warning.

> I understand the "why 2000 and not 1999" argument, but all I can say is
> one has to draw the line somewhere.  If you want to run bogotune below
> the limits, you change the code for yourself or find someone to do it
> for you outside of the mainline distribution.  It's your assumption of
> responsibility.

The arbitrary nature of the line and the hard-coded exact number is one
good reason why an option would be very useful.  Why do you insist so
strongly that this line must be set in stone and absolutely no one would
ever have a legitimate reason to move that limit by even the smallest
amount?

I never asked you or anyone else to do this for me.  I know I can do it
myself.  I am just asking if it could be included in the distribution so
I don't have to maintain it.  How many times do I have to say this?  If
I spend the time to make a patch with a suitable warning is there any
chance at all that it will be included or not?

~Jason