brainchild0

> On issue #5790 there was also quite a bit of discussion about a better name than `defaults`. John suggested `using` and `with` for the command-line equivalents, other options were...

Possibly I've missed an important point, but trying to think through the scenarios and mutations, it seems that we could have, at least in principle, some very roundabout flow of...

> > Was `options` considered yet? It seems conspicuously straightforward. > > It's less fitting than `defaults`, I think. For one thing, the file won't exhaust the options, as additional...

> > Then the result is a document with title The real title, and subtitle The real subtitle, correct? > > I personally hope so, but I think John is...

That logic would be separate from how metadata from multiple sources is merged. I think this process has always been a flat, key-wise update. Or do I misunderstand?

As discussed, the idea on offer would seem in a large sense to defeat the earlier objective of separating the two kinds of data. However, one context in which combining...

> If we do this, it might be wise to define an explicit allow list for command line options which are deemed safe. Another option is to disable the feature...

> I think this is difficult to pull off while balancing usability and security, and naming matters a lot. Yes, I agree that the idea has problems, including acceptability to...

Please consider assigning executable permissions to all setup scripts, including `setup`, `setup_config`, and `setup_script`. Further, please note that the other ones, `setup_database` and `setup_module`, are not executable or readable for...

Perhaps it should be removed from the Store.