lincolnthree
12:21 i just dont see why phase matters as long as its adjacent
12:21 if you dont specify an upper bound you don't specify an upper bound
12:21 up to you to do that
12:21 its not hard
12:21 etc
12:22 in a sense i'm arguing for phases to go away
12:22 but not really
jsightler
12:23 Yeah, I could sort of see that.
lincolnthree
12:23 phases seem more like anchors to me
12:23 that could actually be achieved by adding marker providers that return empty configs
jsightler
12:24 Ah, you mean merge them with the executeAfter/executeBefore concept?
lincolnthree
12:24 and we could move to a purely dependency based model
12:24 yes
12:24 that would simplify the sort
12:24 and the providers
jsightler
12:24 I like that, I think
lincolnthree
12:24 i think i do too, actually
12:24 now that i was able to reach that idea and express it more clearly
jsightler
12:24 It would solve the problem of phases not being extensible, which is really my biggest issue with them.
lincolnthree
12:24 right
12:24 that's true
12:24 good point
12:25 and we still have priority to resolve conflicts
jsightler
12:25 I don't know if it would simplify the sort, though.
lincolnthree
12:25 a little
12:25 you wouldn't have to do a two pass sort for phase then deps
12:25 its just all deps
jsightler
12:25 True... it would eliminate the weird phase sort thing.
12:25 I try very hard to forget about that step. :)
lincolnthree
12:26 hehe
12:26 ok, flies away
jsightler
12:26 I like this idea, though... feel free to file a JIRA :)