Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 08:45:18PM CEST, jpirko(a)redhat.com wrote:
Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:56:13PM CEST, rpazdera(a)redhat.com wrote:
>What is your opinion on keeping recipe_eval options
>in LNST? The same functionality can be now accessed
>using a predefined template variable $recipe. For instance:
>
> {$recipe["machines"][1]["info"]["hostname"]}
>
>So the older way is not needed any more.In my opinion, it
>would be better to stick to one way of accessing the recipe
>to maintain consistency among the recipes, but dropping
>recipe_eval entirely, could break some older ones.
>
>What do you think? We could either drop it entirely or
>keep it in as "undocumented".
Let's just drop it. Breakups can be easily fixed.
I agree. No need to have it there. Also documentation should be updated
to reflect this change (simply delete/substitute the references to
recipe_eval).
>
>Radek
>_______________________________________________
>LNST-developers mailing list
>LNST-developers(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers
_______________________________________________
LNST-developers mailing list
LNST-developers(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/lnst-developers