On 22-06-23 12:24am, Mark Jamsek wrote:
> On 22-06-22 04:08pm, Omar Polo wrote:
> > Mark Jamsek <mark@jamsek.com> wrote:
> > > On 22-06-21 06:56pm, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 01:08:49AM +1000, Mark Jamsek wrote:
> > 
> > Anyway, don't mind my questions, I've realized that most of the times
> > when something doesn't work as I expect it's actually for a good reason
> > and my expectations were wrong in the first place :)
> > 
> 
> I prefer the timeout approach, but I'm happy to change it if you think
> it's better? I don't have any real argument apart from that's just what
> I'm accustomed to so I haven't even given much thought to what could be
> the "better" approach.
> 

Actually, once we make the timeout configurable, users could set it
arbitrarily high so there would effectively be no timeout, making it
more like less(1). I guess that's one way to cater to both models.


-- 
Mark Jamsek <fnc.bsdbox.org>
GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80  E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68