Upayavira wrote: > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > >Upayavira wrote: > > > > > >>To my mind, Mark makes some interesting points here. Could > we get away > >>from using a simple include/exclude, and have: > >> > >>build stable <-- only stable stuff > >>build unstable <-- stable and unstable > >>build webapp <-- only stable stuff > >> > >>Or better: > >> > >>configure stable <-- only stable stuff > >>configure unstable <-- stable and unstable > >>configure webapp <-- only stable stuff > >> > >>That way, it isn't much work to get the unstable stuff, but > you've got > >>to ask for it. > >> > >> > >> > >And you mean, build webapp is an alias for build stable, right. > >I would prefer "build xyz". > > > > > The build webapp as an alias was the weakest bit of my > suggestion - aimed at lending _some_ backwards compatibility. > > If we do build webapp as an alias of build unstable, people > could just carry on as they are, without noticing any change. > Now, perhaps that is in fact a good thing. People who know of > build webapp, and know its behaviour, get what they expect. > Whereas new users, who read the docs, get to choose between > stable and unstable. Then there's the question of which > target to make default, if any. > Sorry, I realize that my response was (again) way too short. I think it's absolutely ok to have build webapp as an alias for build stable. And I meant that I prefer "build xyz" over "configure xyz" :)
Sorry Carsten
