On Fri, 2020-04-24 at 08:47 +0200, Erik Skultety wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 06:46:09PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > 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). Are you sure you didn't mean s/Linux/Windows/ here? ;) > 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. Eh, you know what, whatever. YAML is fine, TOML is fine, bringing in an additional Python module is not a big deal. Let's fix actual issues (if there are any) and skip at least some of the bikeshedding. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization
