On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Strahinja Kustudić <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like the idea, but I don't like the proposal. I would do the same thing, > but the other way around. With your proposal it would break backward > compatibility with 1.9 if you don't update all your includes, or update > ansible.ini. Also most of the includes are static anyway (since dynamic > ones didn't work pre 2.0), so why not make them all static by default. > I went this way to avoid introducing problems with those who have already adopted 2.0. We discussed this internally in depth, and flipping the defaults would break everyone who was using 2.0 and upgrading to 2.1. We feel at this point that most people who have not upgraded are avoiding doing so because of backwards incompatibilities with 2.0, so this is mainly targeted at giving them an upgrade path. > My proposal is to make all includes static by default and introduce a new > keyword *dynamic: yes* (or use *static: no* if you like it more) which > you would set on includes where you need them to be dynamic. This would > make old 1.9 playbooks backward compatible without any changes anywhere, > and if you need a dynamic include in a 2.0 playbook, you will need to > change it in just a few places (since there are far less 2.0 playbooks > anyway and even lower number of dynamic includes). > Again, this is something we discussed internally, the option name is flexible and we can flip it. However for the reasons above we'd default it to `dynamic: yes`. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ansible Project" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ansible-project/CAMFyvFhyn41cwcYO5VH9CaPrAj8T6zHwzECNa328DEYzNYij-g%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
