Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate

Expand Messages
  • IcedNet Development Department
    Hello all, I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this assessment/solution. A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho
    Message 1 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,
      I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this assessment/solution.
      A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho professional way of dealing with this great tremor.
      I had to revert to an older version of lint due to the sheer weight of changes necessary and the utter lack of time to make them - updates pay less than new code after all :)

      Douglas, first, thank you for the best free js tool Ever, and second, keep up the good work... Please :)

      Peace,
      Dan

      _______
      Please pardon my thumbs, the phone is smart, this implies nothing about the user...

      ----- Reply message -----
      From: "Merlin" <g7awz@...>
      Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 10:44
      Subject: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
      To: <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>



      --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, John Hawkinson <jhawk@...> wrote:
      > I think most of us have not begun the task, because we are optimistically
      > hoping Douglas will revert his ill-considered decision. I think that is
      > the best way forward.

      The recent changes have simplified the user interface, so I would not wish to see a reversion of all of the changes.

      The real problem is in the way JSLint now handles the /*jslint */ directive, particularly for those who have large numbers of files which use the directive.

      Although it is possible to edit the files, there is still the possibility of confusion between files that have and have not been edited. It would be much safer to leave the /*jslint */ directive with the original polarity convention, as a legacy/deprecated construct, and introduce a new version of the directive (e.g. /*options */) which would use the new polarity convention.

      It would then be perfectly clear what was intended. I think that such a change would only require fairly minor additions to the jslint.js function itself.

      That would give users time to convert from the old to new convention. After a certain period the old form could be phased out.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Erik Eckhardt
      It s true that the best option is no changes at all to current code. I wasn t sure if that was going to fly with Douglas, though, so I thought another option
      Message 2 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        It's true that the best option is no changes at all to current code. I
        wasn't sure if that was going to fly with Douglas, though, so I thought
        another option could be considered that might at least be *somewhat*
        workable...

        Fully agree it's better to have backward compatibility or at least several
        months notice.

        On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, IcedNet Development Department <
        dev@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Hello all,
        > I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this
        > assessment/solution.
        > A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho professional
        > way of dealing with this great tremor.
        > I had to revert to an older version of lint due to the sheer weight of
        > changes necessary and the utter lack of time to make them - updates pay less
        > than new code after all :)
        >
        > Douglas, first, thank you for the best free js tool Ever, and second, keep
        > up the good work... Please :)
        >
        > Peace,
        > Dan
        >
        > _______
        > Please pardon my thumbs, the phone is smart, this implies nothing about the
        > user...
        >
        >
        > ----- Reply message -----
        > From: "Merlin" <g7awz@...>
        > Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 10:44
        > Subject: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
        > To: <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>
        >
        > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, John Hawkinson <jhawk@...> wrote:
        > > I think most of us have not begun the task, because we are optimistically
        > > hoping Douglas will revert his ill-considered decision. I think that is
        > > the best way forward.
        >
        > The recent changes have simplified the user interface, so I would not wish
        > to see a reversion of all of the changes.
        >
        > The real problem is in the way JSLint now handles the /*jslint */
        > directive, particularly for those who have large numbers of files which use
        > the directive.
        >
        > Although it is possible to edit the files, there is still the possibility
        > of confusion between files that have and have not been edited. It would be
        > much safer to leave the /*jslint */ directive with the original polarity
        > convention, as a legacy/deprecated construct, and introduce a new version of
        > the directive (e.g. /*options */) which would use the new polarity
        > convention.
        >
        > It would then be perfectly clear what was intended. I think that such a
        > change would only require fairly minor additions to the jslint.js function
        > itself.
        >
        > That would give users time to convert from the old to new convention. After
        > a certain period the old form could be phased out.
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rob Richardson
        The more I think of it, the more I really love the /*options ...*/ directive idea. This could provide backwards compatibility for a time while also providing
        Message 3 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          The more I think of it, the more I really love the /*options ...*/ directive
          idea. This could provide backwards compatibility for a time while also
          providing "works the same" for clones. (Swapping out /*jslint ...*/ for
          /*jshint ...*/ gets old.) It is also much more descriptive, following the
          naming convention precedent of /*global ...*/.

          Rob


          -----Original Message-----
          From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of Erik Eckhardt
          Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:09 AM
          To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate

          It's true that the best option is no changes at all to current code. I
          wasn't sure if that was going to fly with Douglas, though, so I thought
          another option could be considered that might at least be *somewhat*
          workable...

          Fully agree it's better to have backward compatibility or at least several
          months notice.

          On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, IcedNet Development Department <
          dev@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > Hello all,
          > I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this
          > assessment/solution.
          > A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho
          professional
          > way of dealing with this great tremor.
          > I had to revert to an older version of lint due to the sheer weight of
          > changes necessary and the utter lack of time to make them - updates pay
          less
          > than new code after all :)
          >
          > Douglas, first, thank you for the best free js tool Ever, and second, keep
          > up the good work... Please :)
          >
          > Peace,
          > Dan
          >
          > _______
          > Please pardon my thumbs, the phone is smart, this implies nothing about
          the
          > user...
          >
          >
          > ----- Reply message -----
          > From: "Merlin" <g7awz@...>
          > Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 10:44
          > Subject: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
          > To: <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>
          >
          > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, John Hawkinson <jhawk@...> wrote:
          > > I think most of us have not begun the task, because we are
          optimistically
          > > hoping Douglas will revert his ill-considered decision. I think that is
          > > the best way forward.
          >
          > The recent changes have simplified the user interface, so I would not wish
          > to see a reversion of all of the changes.
          >
          > The real problem is in the way JSLint now handles the /*jslint */
          > directive, particularly for those who have large numbers of files which
          use
          > the directive.
          >
          > Although it is possible to edit the files, there is still the possibility
          > of confusion between files that have and have not been edited. It would be
          > much safer to leave the /*jslint */ directive with the original polarity
          > convention, as a legacy/deprecated construct, and introduce a new version
          of
          > the directive (e.g. /*options */) which would use the new polarity
          > convention.
          >
          > It would then be perfectly clear what was intended. I think that such a
          > change would only require fairly minor additions to the jslint.js function
          > itself.
          >
          > That would give users time to convert from the old to new convention.
          After
          > a certain period the old form could be phased out.
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Jerry Luke
          options may be a little too generic. I think something more specific to jslint would be a good idea, in case other products or tools decide to use the
          Message 4 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            "options" may be a little too generic. I think something more specific to jslint would be a good idea, in case other products or tools decide to use the /*options � */ directive.

            -Jerry

            From: Rob Richardson <erobrich@...<mailto:erobrich@...>>
            Reply-To: "jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>" <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>>
            Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:36:13 -0700
            To: "jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>" <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>>
            Subject: RE: [jslint] Re: Tolerate



            The more I think of it, the more I really love the /*options ...*/ directive
            idea. This could provide backwards compatibility for a time while also
            providing "works the same" for clones. (Swapping out /*jslint ...*/ for
            /*jshint ...*/ gets old.) It is also much more descriptive, following the
            naming convention precedent of /*global ...*/.

            Rob

            -----Original Message-----
            From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>] On
            Behalf Of Erik Eckhardt
            Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:09 AM
            To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate

            It's true that the best option is no changes at all to current code. I
            wasn't sure if that was going to fly with Douglas, though, so I thought
            another option could be considered that might at least be *somewhat*
            workable...

            Fully agree it's better to have backward compatibility or at least several
            months notice.

            On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, IcedNet Development Department <
            dev@...<mailto:dev%40icednet.info>> wrote:

            >
            >
            > Hello all,
            > I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this
            > assessment/solution.
            > A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho
            professional
            > way of dealing with this great tremor.
            > I had to revert to an older version of lint due to the sheer weight of
            > changes necessary and the utter lack of time to make them - updates pay
            less
            > than new code after all :)
            >
            > Douglas, first, thank you for the best free js tool Ever, and second, keep
            > up the good work... Please :)
            >
            > Peace,
            > Dan
            >
            > _______
            > Please pardon my thumbs, the phone is smart, this implies nothing about
            the
            > user...
            >
            >
            > ----- Reply message -----
            > From: "Merlin" <g7awz@...<mailto:g7awz%40btinternet.com>>
            > Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 10:44
            > Subject: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
            > To: <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>>
            >
            > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>, John Hawkinson <jhawk@...> wrote:
            > > I think most of us have not begun the task, because we are
            optimistically
            > > hoping Douglas will revert his ill-considered decision. I think that is
            > > the best way forward.
            >
            > The recent changes have simplified the user interface, so I would not wish
            > to see a reversion of all of the changes.
            >
            > The real problem is in the way JSLint now handles the /*jslint */
            > directive, particularly for those who have large numbers of files which
            use
            > the directive.
            >
            > Although it is possible to edit the files, there is still the possibility
            > of confusion between files that have and have not been edited. It would be
            > much safer to leave the /*jslint */ directive with the original polarity
            > convention, as a legacy/deprecated construct, and introduce a new version
            of
            > the directive (e.g. /*options */) which would use the new polarity
            > convention.
            >
            > It would then be perfectly clear what was intended. I think that such a
            > change would only require fairly minor additions to the jslint.js function
            > itself.
            >
            > That would give users time to convert from the old to new convention.
            After
            > a certain period the old form could be phased out.
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Rob Richardson
            I d actually hope that others would also use options and that we d also all agree that extra options are ignored, perhaps taking a step towards
            Message 5 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I'd actually hope that others would also use "options" and that we'd also
              all agree that extra options are ignored, perhaps taking a step towards
              de-fragmenting the community.

              Rob


              -----Original Message-----
              From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Jerry Luke
              Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:42 AM
              To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate

              "options" may be a little too generic. I think something more specific to
              jslint would be a good idea, in case other products or tools decide to use
              the /*options . */ directive.

              -Jerry

              From: Rob Richardson <erobrich@...<mailto:erobrich@...>>
              Reply-To: "jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>"
              <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>>
              Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:36:13 -0700
              To: "jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>"
              <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>>
              Subject: RE: [jslint] Re: Tolerate



              The more I think of it, the more I really love the /*options ...*/ directive
              idea. This could provide backwards compatibility for a time while also
              providing "works the same" for clones. (Swapping out /*jslint ...*/ for
              /*jshint ...*/ gets old.) It is also much more descriptive, following the
              naming convention precedent of /*global ...*/.

              Rob

              -----Original Message-----
              From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>
              [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>] On
              Behalf Of Erik Eckhardt
              Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:09 AM
              To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate

              It's true that the best option is no changes at all to current code. I
              wasn't sure if that was going to fly with Douglas, though, so I thought
              another option could be considered that might at least be *somewhat*
              workable...

              Fully agree it's better to have backward compatibility or at least several
              months notice.

              On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, IcedNet Development Department <
              dev@...<mailto:dev%40icednet.info>> wrote:

              >
              >
              > Hello all,
              > I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this
              > assessment/solution.
              > A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho
              professional
              > way of dealing with this great tremor.
              > I had to revert to an older version of lint due to the sheer weight of
              > changes necessary and the utter lack of time to make them - updates pay
              less
              > than new code after all :)
              >
              > Douglas, first, thank you for the best free js tool Ever, and second, keep
              > up the good work... Please :)
              >
              > Peace,
              > Dan
              >
              > _______
              > Please pardon my thumbs, the phone is smart, this implies nothing about
              the
              > user...
              >
              >
              > ----- Reply message -----
              > From: "Merlin" <g7awz@...<mailto:g7awz%40btinternet.com>>
              > Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 10:44
              > Subject: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
              > To: <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>>
              >
              > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>,
              John Hawkinson <jhawk@...> wrote:
              > > I think most of us have not begun the task, because we are
              optimistically
              > > hoping Douglas will revert his ill-considered decision. I think that is
              > > the best way forward.
              >
              > The recent changes have simplified the user interface, so I would not wish
              > to see a reversion of all of the changes.
              >
              > The real problem is in the way JSLint now handles the /*jslint */
              > directive, particularly for those who have large numbers of files which
              use
              > the directive.
              >
              > Although it is possible to edit the files, there is still the possibility
              > of confusion between files that have and have not been edited. It would be
              > much safer to leave the /*jslint */ directive with the original polarity
              > convention, as a legacy/deprecated construct, and introduce a new version
              of
              > the directive (e.g. /*options */) which would use the new polarity
              > convention.
              >
              > It would then be perfectly clear what was intended. I think that such a
              > change would only require fairly minor additions to the jslint.js function
              > itself.
              >
              > That would give users time to convert from the old to new convention.
              After
              > a certain period the old form could be phased out.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Deva Satyam
              I don t know where my message went, since I don t see it here, but I would suggest adding a version number to the jslint directive, this new one being 2: /*
              Message 6 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I don't know where my message went, since I don't see it here, but I would suggest adding a version number to the jslint directive, this new one being 2:

                /* jslint:2 ....... */

                Thus, existing files with plain

                /* jslint */

                would be assumed to be version 1, which is the original settings.

                In this way, there is no need to change anything, current files would be assumed versino 1 with the original settings and, if in the future, there is any new options or format for directives, new version numbers can be added. There is also no need to figure out new keywords to name those directives.

                Satyam

                --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Richardson" <erobrich@...> wrote:
                >
                > I'd actually hope that others would also use "options" and that we'd also
                > all agree that extra options are ignored, perhaps taking a step towards
                > de-fragmenting the community.
                >
                > Rob
                >
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com] On
                > Behalf Of Jerry Luke
                > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:42 AM
                > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
                >
                > "options" may be a little too generic. I think something more specific to
                > jslint would be a good idea, in case other products or tools decide to use
                > the /*options . */ directive.
                >
                > -Jerry
                >
                > From: Rob Richardson <erobrich@...<mailto:erobrich@...>>
                > Reply-To: "jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>"
                > <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>>
                > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:36:13 -0700
                > To: "jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>"
                > <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com>>
                > Subject: RE: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
                >
                >
                >
                > The more I think of it, the more I really love the /*options ...*/ directive
                > idea. This could provide backwards compatibility for a time while also
                > providing "works the same" for clones. (Swapping out /*jslint ...*/ for
                > /*jshint ...*/ gets old.) It is also much more descriptive, following the
                > naming convention precedent of /*global ...*/.
                >
                > Rob
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>
                > [mailto:jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>] On
                > Behalf Of Erik Eckhardt
                > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 9:09 AM
                > To: jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>
                > Subject: Re: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
                >
                > It's true that the best option is no changes at all to current code. I
                > wasn't sure if that was going to fly with Douglas, though, so I thought
                > another option could be considered that might at least be *somewhat*
                > workable...
                >
                > Fully agree it's better to have backward compatibility or at least several
                > months notice.
                >
                > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 8:43 AM, IcedNet Development Department <
                > dev@...<mailto:dev%40icednet.info>> wrote:
                >
                > >
                > >
                > > Hello all,
                > > I rarely come out of lurk mode; however, I agree with this
                > > assessment/solution.
                > > A period of deprecation and adjustment is a standard, and imho
                > professional
                > > way of dealing with this great tremor.
                > > I had to revert to an older version of lint due to the sheer weight of
                > > changes necessary and the utter lack of time to make them - updates pay
                > less
                > > than new code after all :)
                > >
                > > Douglas, first, thank you for the best free js tool Ever, and second, keep
                > > up the good work... Please :)
                > >
                > > Peace,
                > > Dan
                > >
                > > _______
                > > Please pardon my thumbs, the phone is smart, this implies nothing about
                > the
                > > user...
                > >
                > >
                > > ----- Reply message -----
                > > From: "Merlin" <g7awz@...<mailto:g7awz%40btinternet.com>>
                > > Date: Fri, Jun 10, 2011 10:44
                > > Subject: [jslint] Re: Tolerate
                > > To: <jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>>
                > >
                > > --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com<mailto:jslint_com%40yahoogroups.com>,
                > John Hawkinson <jhawk@> wrote:
                > > > I think most of us have not begun the task, because we are
                > optimistically
                > > > hoping Douglas will revert his ill-considered decision. I think that is
                > > > the best way forward.
                > >
                > > The recent changes have simplified the user interface, so I would not wish
                > > to see a reversion of all of the changes.
                > >
                > > The real problem is in the way JSLint now handles the /*jslint */
                > > directive, particularly for those who have large numbers of files which
                > use
                > > the directive.
                > >
                > > Although it is possible to edit the files, there is still the possibility
                > > of confusion between files that have and have not been edited. It would be
                > > much safer to leave the /*jslint */ directive with the original polarity
                > > convention, as a legacy/deprecated construct, and introduce a new version
                > of
                > > the directive (e.g. /*options */) which would use the new polarity
                > > convention.
                > >
                > > It would then be perfectly clear what was intended. I think that such a
                > > change would only require fairly minor additions to the jslint.js function
                > > itself.
                > >
                > > That would give users time to convert from the old to new convention.
                > After
                > > a certain period the old form could be phased out.
                > >
                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
              • Shane Turner
                I second Satyam s suggestion. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Message 7 of 8 , Jun 10, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  I second Satyam's suggestion.

                  On 10/06/2011 2:13 PM, Deva Satyam wrote:
                  >
                  > I don't know where my message went, since I don't see it here, but I
                  > would suggest adding a version number to the jslint directive, this
                  > new one being 2:
                  >
                  > /* jslint:2 ....... */
                  >
                  > Thus, existing files with plain
                  >
                  > /* jslint */
                  >
                  > would be assumed to be version 1, which is the original settings.
                  >
                  > In this way, there is no need to change anything, current files would
                  > be assumed versino 1 with the original settings and, if in the future,
                  > there is any new options or format for directives, new version numbers
                  > can be added. There is also no need to figure out new keywords to name
                  > those directives.
                  >
                  > Satyam
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Zhami
                  I concur with the call for backwards compatibility. I also concur with not having a generic keyword (e.g. /*options ). And I concur that versioning can be
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jun 11, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I concur with the call for backwards compatibility. I also concur with not having a generic keyword (e.g. "/*options"). And I concur that versioning can be quite sensible. All together allows for easy and understandable migration forward for extant code, especially large code bases existing in versioning management repositories).

                    --- In jslint_com@yahoogroups.com, "Deva Satyam" <satyam@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I don't know where my message went, since I don't see it here, but I would suggest adding a version number to the jslint directive, this new one being 2:
                    >
                    > /* jslint:2 ....... */
                    >
                    > Thus, existing files with plain
                    >
                    > /* jslint */
                    >
                    > would be assumed to be version 1, which is the original settings.
                    >
                    > In this way, there is no need to change anything, current files would be assumed versino 1 with the original settings and, if in the future, there is any new options or format for directives, new version numbers can be added. There is also no need to figure out new keywords to name those directives.
                    >
                    > Satyam
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.