Jeremy Harris <jgh@???> (So 26 Jul 2015 18:54:23 CEST):
> On 21/07/15 11:56, Tony Finch wrote:
> > +TF/01 Add a separate outgoing_interface log selector, and move the interface
> > + field after the remote host for consistency with incoming_interface.
>
> This arrived too late for 4.86; sorry.
>
> We now have the option of an incompatible change or a bit
> of massaging - something like, requesting +incoming_interface
> sets the default display of interface for both
> incoming and outgoing, but this is overridden by a
> request of -outgoing_interface.
>
> Thoughts on this?
Sounds hackish. Enabling *incoming* and then asking for disabling
*outgoing*. +interface for all (in and out) and +incoming_interface,
+outgoing_interface for the individual interfaces. Maybe the +interface
is redundant and can be left away.
What's the incompatible change? More I'd complain about the naming of
+incoming_interface vs. +incoming_port, but that's an other story.
--
Heiko
