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 than
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
--
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
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 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
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:51 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
