remove include: feature

[imjasonh]

Opening for discussion.

We don't use this feature, and I don't know of anybody who does or would. It presents a potentially confusing or abuse-prone surface.

[lpcalisi]

@imjasonh I was thinking about that include feature to incorporate some base configurations to all apko definitions, like inheritance. Users, environments variables, paths, or packages for tooling in some cases.

[imjasonh]

@imjasonh I was thinking about that include feature to incorporate some base configurations to all apko definitions, like inheritance. Users, nvironments variables, paths, or packages for tooling in some cases.

That seems reasonable. I would still like to remove remote includes, since that seems more likely to cause bad bugs than helpful experiences.

I'd also like to invest in better (any) tests for this feature if anyone is actually using it. There might be confusing corner cases involved in merging two configs, that we should at least document in a test.

If you're interested in adding those tests or using that behavior, let me know.

[lpcalisi]

i could add some tests and improve documentation about how use this feature, if it still make sense for you.

A couple a weeks ago i made this #996 in order to extend definitions of include, i could try to work in this PR to add tests

[imjasonh]

Sorry I missed that PR. It looks good so far, more tests are always welcome.

Sounds like we should keep local includes, but not remote. Does that sound good?

[lpcalisi]

@imjasonh i made the changes, could you take a look?