On Tuesday 03 Nov 2009 01:06:50 David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > I still think I prefer Zefram's approach, remove optional_features
> > entirely.
>
> +1
>
+1 too. I hate optional_features with a passion.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
> David
>
--
Adam Kennedy wrote:
I still think I prefer Zefram's approach, remove optional_features entirely.
I would rather get rid of "suggests" and "recommends". optional_features
is not that different from these both, but it has a name and a
description. I'd rather pick the feature "fulltext_search" t
On Nov 2, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
I still think I prefer Zefram's approach, remove optional_features
entirely.
+1
David
I still think I prefer Zefram's approach, remove optional_features entirely.
Adam K
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM, David Golden wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
>> I don't know the history of this, but - risking that I'll add
>> something already covered - I w
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak wrote:
> I don't know the history of this, but - risking that I'll add
> something already covered - I would propose that if optional features
> are to be formalized - then they should be allowed to appear in
> 'require_*'. Otherwise optional feat
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Slaven Rezic wrote:
> David Golden wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM, David Golden wrote:
>>>
>>> 21. Formalize optional_features
>>>
>>> Proposal:
>>>
>>> Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
>>> manual intervention and t
David Golden wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM, David Golden wrote:
21. Formalize optional_features
Proposal:
Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
manual intervention and trickery to make it work. And it is very poorly
documented. (Tux)
I'm for doing som
David Golden wrote:
>Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
>manual intervention and trickery to make it work. And it is very poorly
>documented. (Tux)
Get rid of it. I think each such feature should be reified as a module,
which one can declare as a dependency of a
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM, David Golden wrote:
> 21. Formalize optional_features
>
> Proposal:
>
> Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
> manual intervention and trickery to make it work. And it is very poorly
> documented. (Tux)
I'm for doing something, eith
On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote:
I've had more hassle than luck with optional features, but since
some people make valid use of it, I'd be (slightly) against removal.
+1 to formalization
+1 I've stayed away from optional_features because of the hinky extra
library that M
David Golden wrote:
21. Formalize optional_features
I've had more hassle than luck with optional features, but since some
people make valid use of it, I'd be (slightly) against removal.
+1 to formalization
Steffen
On Oct 9, 2009, at 8:15 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:51:56]
21. Formalize optional_features
Proposal:
Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
manual intervention and trickery to make it work. And it is very
poorly
documented. (Tux)
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:51:56]
> 21. Formalize optional_features
>
> Proposal:
>
> Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
> manual intervention and trickery to make it work. And it is very poorly
> documented. (Tux)
Either ditch optional_features or make its
21. Formalize optional_features
Proposal:
Optional features: is supported in META.yml, but it requires a lot of
manual intervention and trickery to make it work. And it is very poorly
documented. (Tux)
Comments:
* Not all YAML parsers parse that structure the same way, so the order of
this se
14 matches
Mail list logo
