> On Jul 21, 2017, at 9:41 AM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > >> On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:59 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> to avoid further ossification, I’d like to propose the following: >> >> 1. All new configuration files *must* be done using Lua syntax (with the >> appropriate file extension) > > I think in the previous thread on file extensions, I disagreed with this. > Whatever the syntax, they are config files not generic Lua code.
Yeh the agreement was .luaconf I think, but is digress. We should use anything but .config, because of migration issues. And for the record, I completely disagreed with you, .lua would have been best for all purposes that matters, such as editors. :-) im pretty sure this is what others do too when they embed Lua. > >> 2. For major changes to an existing configuration file, we *strongly* >> recommended to also include a migration to Lua > > This is really a subset of upgrade tooling, which would be pretty useful. > However, we haven't done this in the past and I have not seen any interest in > this. If we want to do this it should be required. I'm fine with making this required as well, but there's a fine line here to decide what is "major" or not. Cheers, -- Leif > > J
