15.12.2013 23:25, David Lang:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Pavel Levshin wrote:
15.12.2013 23:09, David Lang:
ii) *don't even bother with the old-style config*. Double the effort,
triple the confusion. Even right now, everything supported (7.x and
later)
works with new-style config. We tell everyone to upgrade, so it
makes sense
to concentrate on the new stuff that we consider better.
sometimes it's much easier to do the old-style config, and there are
a lot of docs out there with the old style (not to mention configs),
we need people to be able to understand what these existing docs and
configs are talking about. As well as how to convert from one style
to the other.
Old-style config should be obsolete, and it's a pity if they are so
much easier, that it justifies mixing them with new-style. This is
not to say that old-style should not be documented. Obviously, if
they are supported, they need to be documented. But users should feel
encouraged to use just one, hopefully newer, dialect. This can be
reached by following some rules in docs. Something like this:
- When describing a feature, use only newer syntax;
- Then list all mappings from older to newer syntax separately, with
examples, to make migration simpler.
old style configs are going to continue to be supported.
As backward compatibility measure, but their usage is not recommended,
right? So, how do we separate current syntax from legacy one?
new features may not get old tyle config options, but the existing old
style config options need to be explained in the same place as the new
style.
I disagree. If this is done this way, an user will use any of options,
not always recommended one. Secondly, any new user is not interested in
learning old-style syntax. Therefore, it should not waste space on the
same screen where all the cool features described.
Anyone who is using old-style will need to go to a separate chapter in
the same file, and there he will see a link to the feature description
above.
otherwise new admins who need to figure out what their systems are
really configured to do are going to have a real problem figuring it out.
It will be straightforward process: search for a keyword, read
conversion description, follow link to the feature (or just search for
new-style keyword).
And trying to have people who don't understand what their configs are
doing convert them to the new style is a _VERY_ bad idea.
Yep.
--
Pavel Levshin
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
