On Tue, 28 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joshua Slive wrote: > > > Sure, I agree with all that. I'm just trying to figure out the use-case > > for having "Include dir/" recursively include subdirectories. If there is > > such a case, we should keep it, but I don't know if there is. > > In my experience tremendously useful in server farms which central CVS > controlled 'stock' configs - using things like 'depot' and symlinks; you > link in your base-line farm wide directories; your server specific ones; > map in what you do on a per functionality block. While still allowing > modularity and central management. Also - when using coda, afs or evil > things like amd - it really allows you 'boot' up a web server, or with a > graceful restart, (re)configure a virgin server without any concatenation > or editing operations on the box.
OK. I'm convinced. At least three people have said they use this extensively, so we should continue to support it. Why don't we just keep the existing behavior and add "Include dir/*.conf" as an option. We can assume that people who are using recursively included directories are smart enough that they can avoid the backup problem on their own. Joshua.
