[chef] Re: Re: Re: default recipe

[Lamont Granquist < >]

On Fri May  2 09:56:59 2014, Daniel DeLeo wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Ranjib Dey wrote:
> > yes, recipe[foo] implies recipe[foo::default]. but the double mention in 
> > Recipes is a bug.
> > earlier recipes field used to not include recipes incorporated via 
> > include_recipe method. which was fixed recently (and may be during that 
> > effort this bug was introduced)
>
>
> We did consider this case when we made that change but probably we overlooked 
> something. A bug report would be most welcome.

Yeah, I believe the intent was to expand 'foo' to 'foo::default' 
everywhere and avoid double counting and standardize on the more 
canonical version.  Looks like there's a buggy edge case.