Luke wrote: > One of the problems with an annotated conf file is what happens at > upgrade time, when new config options have been added to the system. > In the case of httpd.conf, it's not too bad for me because dconf > (Debian conf system) is great and asks me what to do (i.e. doesn't > overwrite my updated version etc, and even shows me the differences > between the two). But that obviously isn't the case for everyone, and > certainly isn't feasible at all for Django. This means that you'll > still have to go and read the docs for full information, and your fully > annotated version is no longer fully annotated. Even worse are the > cases where a setting is deprecated, or subtleties about its meaning > are changed, but you might go on blindly believing what you read in > your ageing settings.py
These are all good points, and are pretty much the objections I imagined. I think, though, that upgrades are pretty tricky territory regardless. There are already comments in settings.py, some of which are surely going to be made incorrect by a future upgrade. And settings.py isn't the only place where things need a careful going-over when switching versions. When I switched from the trunk to magic-removal a few days ago, settings.py was the least of my worries. I'm not weddded to this idea by any means, I just wanted to give it a good airing while we're still here in pre-1.0 land. pb --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
