4 ms·
There's something about that decision that violates my mental model. Feels similar to a referential transparency issue: the state of the system should be the sa
by switchbak 4y ago
There's something about that decision that violates my mental model. Feels similar to a referential transparency issue: the state of the system should be the same regardless of the name of the directory something lives in.
- turtlebits 4y agoWhile that may be true, you should never destroy things that are out of your scope.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoYou can specify a project name, but giving things rigidly-defined names breaks the whole idea of it. Why would you want two different instances of the same project to have the same name?
- lazide 4y agoWho said it’s a different instance?! Renaming a directory structure doesn’t have side effects like this in pretty much any other infra stuff. It’s like nc or curl deciding what Server to connect to based on the current directory name. Whacky.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoThat is specifically how it's designed. If you want to create a bunch of identical but differently-named projects, put them in separate directories. Why on earth would you want to have lots of different directories that all point to the same instance? That's simply idiotic.
- mirekrusin 4y agoIt's a great convention over configuration decision (that you can overwrite with -p) that trivially gives solution to multi-tenancy problem, similarly you'll run into problems when renaming $HOME to something else; for curl it's more like being surprised that it uses different source ip address and gives different result when called from host in China than in Europe.
- switchbak 4y agoPrecisely my point. It's surprising behavior that breaks the mental model of more than a few people I've mentioned it to.
- pbalau 4y agoWhich is true if you pass -p. The current directory is merely the default.
- lazide 4y agoDocker has tons of smells/irritations like this. Overall, it is worth it, but damn is it weird sometimes.