On Jun 22, 2008, at 9:53 AM, Alan DeKok wrote:
Chris wrote:
So if possibly improving inherent clarity in the default config nets a "why bother, nobody'll read it anyway" from you, why should anyone else care?
Nice try.
The module configuration is documented in radiusd.conf, in the "modules" section. It explains clearly the syntax and behavior of the module configuration. It is further documented in the files in the "doc" directory, and in the example module configurations (modules/ directory in 2.0.5, or radiusd.conf in other versions.)
Your suggestion to duplicate the documentation in *more* places is not helpful. Especially since your original complaint was in response to someone who was told *what* to read, and *where* to read it... and still had issues.
Please demonstrate how adding *more* documentation will help people who don't read the existing documentation that they're told to read. Use examples. Please.
I'm not suggesting more documentation. I'm suggesting modules in the default config be defined in a consistent manner for, well, consistency and clarity. Thus making that segment of the documentation less necessary. Instead of: modules { sql { } sql another-sql-module { } } It would be more clear to eliminate the dual syntax of defining modules with something like this: modules { sql sql-module { } sql another-sql-module { } } Then when someone cuts and pastes a default config module to modify, they just might key into the fact that they need to define an sql module named x-sql-module without having to go to the documentation at all.
The real issue is you got caught. You have vocal complaints about a product that until now, you've refused to contribute to... despite profiting from it. When this was pointed out, you searched desperate for some justifaction to "prove" that any contribution wouldn't be accepted.... and got caught again.
You know, before deploying this time around I searched for a way to make a monetary contribution and came up empty. I then decided I would wait for the book and buy that but there isn't one.
Submit a *useful* patch, and it will go in. Until then, please continue to profit from a project that "sucks". A project to which you've contributed nothing. The sheer hypocrisy of that position should be evident to everyone.
I might very well take the time to make these changes to the default config and submit patches, but it'd obviously be a waste of time because you've already determined such changes are useless, or at least not *useful*. Actually, I said the software was a "gem". It's the "config file comments as a substitute for documentation" that sucks.