Peter Bourgon

Gotcha. Just FYI, in theory, it's possible for the trc UI on _any_ instance to show trace data from _every_ instance. Look at the trc-complex example for more detail. Oversimplifying:...

It's not just the CA — the server fronting my Prometheus does mutual TLS auth with the certificate presented by the client. Alas.

I guess `cfg.Push` is something like ```go type Push struct { FCM []struct { Name string ProjectID string ServiceAccount string } } ``` ?

I don't think ffyaml is a fit for this use case. All of the ff— packages expect files where each (fully-expanded) identifier is unique, and corresponds to a single flag...

> Command line version perhaps could look something like this: > > ``` > --push.fcm[0].name="app1" --push.fcm[0].project-id="foo" --push.fcm[0].service-account="bar" > --push.fcm[1].name="app2" --push.fcm[1].project-id="baz" --push.fcm[1].service-account="qux" > ``` What would be the result of `--push.fcm[999].project-id="x"`?...

OK, so what would be the result of parsing the following? - `--push.fcm[999].name=a` — presumably you would expect Parse to return an error here? - `--push.fcm[0].name=a --push.fcm[1].name=b` — is it...

So I'm not totally convinced that the benefit from expanding the API surface area to include these new methods outweighs the cost of adding these zero-value params, but I guess...

Super interesting! I would love to have this kind of functionality, modulo cost/benefit considerations. Give me some time to review.

Sorry for the radio silence. I'm basically on board with this functionality. Can you show me a strawman PR? _edit_: It looks like the best approach would be a separate...

> v4 I suppose so, yes. > `HIDDEN:` ... ff.Command vs. ff.Parse I think I need to better understand the constraints involved in completion before I can give useful feedback....