Comment 1 for bug 1479110

Dan Wells (dbw2) wrote :

I've looked this over, and I think it is more or less a two line change. I plan to go ahead and push a branch soon, but I'm not sure we really want to go that way. IMHO, it potentially makes it equally confusing from the opposite perspective (i.e. setting the prohibit setting to 'false' to try and stop the behavior, but it doesn't).

The real problem is that Evergreen doesn't have a decent way to manage settings. It isn't practical to treat every setting as fully independent (and we don't), but they sure look that way in our rudimentary interface. I think the goal of having one or just a few 'master' switches for optional features is sensible and desirable from the code side, but does get confusing from the setting interface side.

Does anyone have good thoughts on how to generally make clear "these switches enable behavior x" while "these switches tweak/modify behavior x"? I think that is the idea behind the current setup. Ideally they'd all be in a nice single configuration dialog for the feature, but we're far away from that.