VCL storage discussion summary

[Federico Schwindt]

Regardless of the RR, any comments or guidelines to move this forward?

Should we stick to the _hint and gc in the next major release?

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Federico Schwindt <fgsch at lodoss.net>
wrote:

> In my experience setups defining multiple storages are few and they use
> them explicitly (in VCL).
>
> While I'm not necessarily advocating this change I think this will be
> closer to how someone would expect it to work.
> Waiting for the next major release and documenting the change might do the
> trick.
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk at phk.freebsd.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> --------
>> In message <CAJV_h0baK40Nf=r5t7TRZTTpOiVQ8jJrkKuCjxrYYkD2LKO7qA at mail.gm
>> ail.com>
>> , Federico Schwindt writes:
>>
>> >Why? Is there anyone depending on this feature?
>>
>> Pretty much anyone with two -s arguments are, and they probably dont know
>> it.
>>
>> >Wouldn't be easier to visualise and/or explain what is going where if
>> it's
>> >done explicitly?
>>
>> This doesn't preclude doing it explicitly, it merely maintains existing
>> configs working.
>>
>> --
>> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
>> phk at FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
>> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
>> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
>> incompetence.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/pipermail/varnish-dev/attachments/20161011/c3c78ce2/attachment.html>