On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay, so it sounds like all those who objected to this for 1.6.0 are > okay with the compromise of leaving the examples in place for 1.6.0. > So, I'll proceed with that. Thanks, all! > > (Mike, I'm not sure it how to mark it as experimental, or that it is > experimental in the first place, but from what you've said, and > clarification in IRC, it sounds like you're not going to be too hung > up on that.) > > +1 > -- > Christopher L Tubbs II > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > If there is a way to mark the changes as experimental in 1.6.0 I would be > > most happy with that, otherwise just applying them and leaving the > examples > > is fine. Removing the examples from 1.7 is the way to go, in my opinion. > > > > My main issue was that this change would be very surprising for > downstream > > consumers who are trying to do deployments, and we haven't had very much > > time to test it. > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 9:00 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> I'm okay with Josh's suggestion of both. > >> > >> Sent from my phone, please pardon the typos and brevity. > >> > >> On Apr 5, 2014 10:23 PM, "Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Acknowledged. > >>> > >>> I do want to hear from Mike Drob and John Vines first before I take > >>> any further action on this, though. If they're okay with what Sean and > >>> Josh suggested (making the changes to 1.6.0 without removing the > >>> examples), I'll do that. If not, I'll re-apply the commit to 1.7.0 > >>> only. > >>> > >>> Either way, I'll put in a follow-on ticket for auto-generating the > >>> example configs in the build and moving them from conf/ to docs/ in > >>> 1.7.0. I'll still wait for their feedback first, though, so I get the > >>> initial wording of those tickets right. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Christopher L Tubbs II > >>> http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > You have to think about the impact that you put on people downstream > >>> > that > >>> > are expecting those files to be in place. Packagers, most notably, > >>> > would be > >>> > affected. It's not just that there is an example that someone can > >>> > interpret, > >>> > but also automated processes or tutorials/howtos that people have > >>> > written > >>> > that expect these files to exist. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On 4/5/2014 12:57 PM, Christopher wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Personally, I think the template serves as a sufficient example, and > >>> >> the generated files after executing the bootstrap_config script > should > >>> >> also serve the same purpose, but I can appreciate the lower impact > >>> >> (especially to documentation that may refer to examples) of leaving > >>> >> the examples in place. > > > > >
