Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
separate locals from config values - #2648
Conversation
aredridel
commented
May 14, 2015
Oh, this is interesting, and super useful for the namespace collisions that have bothered users of |
dougwilson
commented
May 14, 2015
As this is not backwards-compatible, it would have to wait for 5.0. I'm not against this at all, just highlighting why it won't get merged right away :) I'm a +1 for this, though. |
aredridel
commented
May 15, 2015
That's awesome. The mashed-up namespaces there really do make backward compatibility a pain -- you can't safely add anything. Separating locals is the best start. |
aks-
commented
May 15, 2015
Aha, thank you folks! |
5f268a4 to
9848645Compareeb10dba to
340be0fComparewesleytodd
commented
May 15, 2024
I think the remaining things we need to do to land this are:
I know we are resurrecting a PR from 2015 here, so I dont expect folks here to volunteer, but if you want to work on this please volunteer soon. I will circle back this weekend and if no one has stepped up I will try and knock out these items. |
wesleytodd
commented
Jul 23, 2024
Hey, I am guessing the folks in this PR are not interested in helping get this over the finish line at this point. Totally understandable, but also I think it means we are going to kick the can to v6 on this. We have limited contributor time and want to ship v5 asap so if we cannot get assistance landing these we are unable to get to them all. I hope we can change that in the future and start landing things more quickly for v6 and beyond. |
Keeping a separate namespace so that what's sent per-request is separate from long-lived configuration values.