On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 15:28 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: > > This series is trying to consolidate the number of config files we currently > > recognize under ~/.config/lcitool to a single global TOML config file. Thanks > > to this effort we can expose more seetings than we previously could which will > > come handy in terms of generating cloudinit images for OpenStack. > > > > Patches 1-4 patches are just a little extra - not heavily related to the series > > See patch 5/13 why TOML was selected. > > First of all, thanks for tackling this! It's something that we've > sorely needed for a while now. > > Now, I know I'm the one who suggested TOML in the first place... But > looking at the series now I can't help but think, why not YAML? O:-) To be honest, even before you originally mentioned TOML, I myself had INI in mind, so then I thought, yeah, why not go with TOML then, it's similar and more powerful. I did some comparison of several formats, because like you say, with YAML we'd be more close to Ansible and I was on the cusp of choosing between YAML and TOML and I felt like TOML was still more readable and expressive in terms of simple configuration (and that's what Linux users are IMO used to from INI). I was never a big fan of YAML really and when the dictionaries and list happen to intertwine and nest a lot, YAML looses its readability quite quickly IMO, which I never felt with TOML, but it's fair to say that my TOML experience is very limited. That said, I don't expect us to have such a massive config, so that multiple levels of YAML nesting will be necessary :). > > Since we're using it extensively already due to Ansible, I think it > would make sense to use it for the configuration file as well. It's > easy enough to consume for a human, and we wouldn't need to drag in > an additional dependency. I also believe, perhaps naively, that > adapting your code to use YAML instead of TOML wouldn't require much > work - from the Python point of view, you basically end up with a > dictionary in both cases. > > Feel free to argue against this suggestion! For example, if you agree > with it in principle but feel like it's unfair of me to ask you to > rework your code, I'm happy to port it myself. I'd still prefer TOML, but I don't really have a compelling reason to argue against YAML other than readability which I already admitted to be just a matter of taste. Now on a more serious note, I'll wait for your detailed review and then rework it in YAML in vX. > > As for the rest of the series - I've only skimmed it so far, but I > did not spot anything horribly wrong with it at first glance. I'll > provide an actual, detailed review next week. Okay, thanks. -- Erik Skultety
