-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 619
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Un-deprecate non-strict YAML #3104
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks, but this might be considered as a breaking change
It is, but it has been deprecated for over 2 years now (since 0.12.0), and issuing a warning for over 2 years: #1045. So yes, it should be mentioned in the release notes. But if we never want to remove it, then we should maybe get rid of the deprecation warning and just print the non-strict YAML errors. |
For me it is quite normal to get warnings, when switching between alternative futures and the release version.
If these are changed from warnings to errors, I would need to use a separate LIMA_HOME for experimenting... Which is "OK", I suppose. Can't say that it hasn't warned :-) ... will be unsupported in a future version ... |
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing this morning; it is an inconvenience for maintainers. So let's just remove the deprecation message, but keep it as a warning only. |
We still warn the user because it could be due to typos, but we no longer threaten to make strict mode the default. Allowing non-strict YAML is very useful for maintainers switching between feature branches. Failing on non-strict YAML would make it hard to e.g. delete instances that have been created by a different branch that introduces a new field. Signed-off-by: Jan Dubois <[email protected]>
5b2895a
to
aee66fb
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks
We still warn the user because it could be due to typos, but we no longer threaten to make strict mode the default.
Allowing non-strict YAML is very useful for maintainers switching between feature branches. Failing on non-strict YAML would make it hard to e.g. delete instances that have been created by a different branch that introduces a new field.