Thanks.

I've created a couple stories to address those two requests:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/129187415
https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/129187421

As it stands, it might be quite a while til we're able to get to them as
we're deep in the midst of working through several Consul stability
issues. We would definitely welcome PRs here, and happy to provide
guidance on implementation and test coverage.

Best,
Amit

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Hector Rivas Gandara <
hector.rivas.gandara(a)digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk> wrote:

Hi,

I understand. I'm claiming that if consul-release supports just the

first two, then you don't really need the third.

Can you describe a case where you would want to do the third thing on

that list but not the first two?

Ok, I understand.

Yes, you are right, I cannot think right now a straight forward use
case for this. There might be some edge case where you want to define
different recursors, but the MVP is indeed implement the 2 first
options (bind different port and not rewrite /etc/resolv.conf).

Despite the use case, the most reasonable justification to allow
override the recursors that I can find is:
* It would be more explicit.
* the set of properties would be more similar to consul itself.
* It would be one way to disable recursion.

--
Regards
Hector Rivas | GDS / Multi-Cloud PaaS