Derrick Stolee <stolee@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > My intention was to bend over backwards to prevent a behavior change > in the default case. However, I'm coming around to understand that > we don't need this background maintenance to be redone every time > and can become a no-op by default. (Other new configuration will > still happen.) > > In the case where we're fine changing the default behavior, then > the standard --[no-]maintenance option will work, though it is a > three-way switch where the lack of its existence means "don't do > either mode". Ahh, OK. I misread your intention. If it is common for existing users to disable maintenance, perhaps by mistake, together with configuration changes that are not quite right, perhaps also by mistake, and if they used reconfigure to recover from such mistakes, it indeed may make sense to nuke the current setting and enable maintenance unconditionally. As you suggested in a part of your response I omitted, we can annotate <mode> to give hints on the valid choices to help users, without changing the default behaviour. I am personally fine either way, as long as we clearly document the reasoning behind our design. Thanks.
