A Proposal to deal with groups

[Garrett Cooper]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Saravanan Shanmugham
(sarvi)<sarvi at cisco.com> wrote:
> I have been struggling with what it means to have groups in Upstart and what
> the expectd behaviour would be.
>
> Here is what I have come up. I went through several iterations over the last
> few months thinking about what it should look like.
> This is the one that feels good so far or anywhere close to it.
>
> Here is a proposal to support groups in Upstart.

Hi upstart devs,
    Just a general question: wasn't the .job extension made a
requirement in 0.5.2 / 0.5.3 s.t. in order for a job to exist in the
jobs directory and be parsed, it had to have a .job extension? Or was
that a planned enhancement to 1.x? I ask because if that's the case
then there isn't a need for an additional directory for the groups job
files, s.t. all one needs to do is add a requirement for the .group
extension in all group-based jobfiles, and maybe a .inc, etc extension
for an include based jobfile like Sarvi is proposing?
Thanks,
-Garrett