useNoSSLForPackages and other badly-conceived options (notice non-hijacked thread!)

[Paul Gear]

As the subject says, i think 'useNoSSLForPackages' is rather badly
conceived.  Whenever i see an option that has the word "No" or "Don't"
in it, alarm bells ring in my head.

This is a recipe for confusion.  Can we get future versions of the
option renamed to "useSSLForPackages"?  (I would make it off by default,
too, since many packages are rather large and some of us still pay a lot
for bandwidth.)

I suppose i should bugzilla this...
-- 
Paul
http://paulgear.webhop.net

A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20030927/1a524d02/attachment-0001.sig>