Defer single-file overlays and retire the roadmap
This commit is contained in:
@@ -102,3 +102,29 @@ string equality must not be presented as semantic equality.
|
||||
Keeping `Path` solely as an opaque query/building value remains an alternative.
|
||||
No current contract changes or implementation commitment follow from this entry;
|
||||
a comparison operation can be added compatibly later.
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Single-file named overlays
|
||||
|
||||
Status: deferred. Consider supporting a single `overlays.yml` containing named
|
||||
overlay bodies alongside the existing
|
||||
[selected-overlay directory convention](../config.md#selected-overlays).
|
||||
This would let small applications keep their overlays in one file. Planning was
|
||||
tabled because the added semantics outweighed the immediate convenience; the
|
||||
draft is preserved at `3e50388:docs/roadmap/overlays.md`.
|
||||
|
||||
The draft selected a direct name-to-body mapping, strict peer composition when
|
||||
both storage forms contribute to the selected name, and file-level version
|
||||
checks using the application's existing rule and mode. These provide a starting
|
||||
point for reconsideration, not an implementation commitment.
|
||||
|
||||
### Questions to resolve before implementation
|
||||
|
||||
- Where should collection controls live: within each named body or at catalog
|
||||
level, and how should that interact with document-root control ownership?
|
||||
- How should configured version metadata paths coexist with overlay names,
|
||||
including nested paths and modes that do not check overlay versions?
|
||||
- Which semantic checks should apply to unselected bodies?
|
||||
- Should `.yaml` also be recognized, and how should multiple matching files
|
||||
interact?
|
||||
- How should catalog lookup be enabled without disrupting successful loads that
|
||||
previously ignored an adjacent `overlays.yml`?
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user