On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:36 AM, Daniel van Vugt <
daniel.van.v...@canonical.com> wrote:
> All the features are useful. And use of the word "playground" was not my
> choice (I was outvoted). They have all been used to develop other features
> or to diagnose bugs in Mir, or soon will be used when I
Definitely not suggesting it's not useful, or that we should remove it. But
"playground" (I am not a big fan of the name either) has one specific
purpose stated previously but now includes code that doesn't contribute to
that purpose (again, it does contribute to other just as useful purposes).
Wh
>> Definitely not suggesting it's not useful, or that we should remove it.
I am suggesting both. I think we've found uses for it given its existence
but it's existence is overall harmful.
I think mir_demo_server is just as useful for testing downstream projects.
Neither is useful for testing Unit
First, I agree, with moving useful/mature features to mir_demo_server. To
the name "playground" and voting, if it was voted on and implemented we
should follow the convention. Or rename & update readmes...we just need to
fix it.
What we have at the moment seems contradictory and confusing (e.g.
enc
