Opinion poll: We have a lot of Fields that are

FooExtraEnvVarsField

, should we make that a common field? I think the pro is that we don't keep redefining them, the con is that we don't get to customise the help text. Thoughts?

common field on which target..? not all targets makes sense to have extra env vars associated with..?

Because of field set matching, having a unique field type for a target is ideal. Inheritance works here though

I'm confused about what you mean by field set matching encouraging unique field sets. Wouldn't we get the same behaviour the way we reuse the members of

COMMON_TARGET_FIELDS

(Tags, DescriptionField)?

Those aren't matched realistically in any field set.

I imagine the field sets involving this particular field are almost certainly going to have a

FooSourcesField

or similar that's likely to be sufficient disambiguation (as in, even if one skipped the subclassing, using

ExtraEnvVarsField

directly would likely be fine).

yea, I agree we wouldn't likely use extra env vars field as a matching field for field sets.. but it's a good point to keep in mind when working with fields.

(Dependencies and sources, I think are the big 2 for uniqueness)