On 19.06.2012 16:17, Milan Broz wrote: > On 06/19/2012 03:54 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote: > > > I find the option name --without-activation to be quite long and hard to > > type. Is there any reason why you didn't choose '--dry-run' as you first > > suggested? > > Actually I wrote --dry-run, --no-activate, --no-activation, --without-activation > on paper ... and then asked someone here what's the best:) > > Well, I think this option will be rarely used and I guess it is mainly for use > in scripts. Option name says exactly what it is doing. It says what technically happens, not was is the intent of using said option. (You have to read the man-page, at least in the git-version of a few minutes ago the intent is right after the technicallity) I think intent is much easier to understand. So i'd vote for: --test-passphrase Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. _______________________________________________ dm-crypt mailing list dm-crypt@xxxxxxxx http://www.saout.de/mailman/listinfo/dm-crypt
