On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:54 PM, C Anthony Risinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Rich Newpol <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ooo my two cents - I like the override system, especially with the new >> file-based (rather than directory-based) naming convention. My only issue >> with the current override scheme is that it isn't always clear what you can >> put in the override file and what you can leave out but there are lots of >> examples to check. >> >> Aside from that bit of head-scratching, it's nice that overrides are clearly >> seen at the directory level, and 'special' code doesn't clutter the >> 'mainstream' code. >> >> Basically, I like it. > > yes i like it much more now that they are all at the same level ... i > guess i don't like the fact that many overrides are very minimal and > don't really necessitate a whole new file. i think this makes it > harder to actually remove dead code and/or reconcile the differences, > because they are not next to each other. > > there is room to work here ... not really critical. maybe a mix of > both, idk, but i do want to increase the visibility somehow.
... also the reliance on specialized import/merging machinery kinda sucks, and is brittle, IMO. -- C Anthony
