Features was not made deployment, but it is useful for deployment and it has a huge user base already; instead of splitting the forces, let's join together to make features better? According to the issue queue search, you haven't filed any issues to see if the changes this module provides would be useful for features -- they would be, IMO. I at least have considered some of them, though they have not been a priority so haven't worked on them.

Instead of duplicating a lot of functionality (and duplicating code, e.g includes directory), let's work togeather, aye?

Comments

tom friedhof’s picture

tom friedhof commented
Component: Code » Miscellaneous

Hi hefox, I wrote another blog post to clear up this misconception. We want to work with features, not be an alternative to features. Check out this post: http://activelamp.com/blog/why-configuration-module-over-features-module

Hope that clears up our intentions.

btmash’s picture

btmash commented
Project: Configuration » Configuration Management
Version: » 7.x-1.x-dev

Moving to appropriate project.

dragonwize’s picture

dragonwize commented
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

This is not duplication it is proper framework abstraction. The point it is to stop using Features for what it is and has never been intended to be used for, configuration management. Moving that part out of Features and letting it focus on its core objective of modular ownership of configuration that can be turned on and off with a switch is part of the purpose of this. This also is the test base to test how Features will work in D8 as this provides similar workflows and functionality.

I have talked with the Features maintainers and they agree and are inline with this track as well.