Overview
Artifact ID: | e8f230f27414fdf47b3538b085617167d97e5bd6 |
---|---|
Ticket: | 9b82775b936561bcd14c12f6e4121c39469291df
config file relative path handling policy |
User & Date: | mrwellan on 2013-04-09 12:22:03 |
Changes
- comment changed to:
<verbatim> 1. Config file includes are done relative to the location of the first config file If foo/bar.config contains: [include configs/nada.config] and configs/nada.config contains: [include blah/fuz.config] Then fuz.config would need to be at foo/blah/fuz.config 2. Config file includes are done relative to the location of the currently being processed config In the example above fuz.config would be found at foo/configs/blah/fuz.config 3. Config file includes are required to be absolute e.g. #{getenv MT_RUN_AREA_HOME}/foo/configs/blah/fuz.config Which policy do you want going forward? I'll ensure we adhere to whatever we choose from here on out. My current test suite assumes policy #3 but I'm fine with supporting either #1 or #2. </verbatim>
- severity changed to: "Important"
- status changed to: "Open"
- title changed to: "config file relative path handling policy"
- type changed to: "Feature_Request"