Kicking off billing scipt in accounting block

[Chris]

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.