This introduced a breaking change, and was not widely circulated among
users during the RFC discussion process. Since it is largely orthogonal
to this RFC, let's move it to another, fresh RFC for discussion.
In particular, as I consider beginning work on modifying clients, I'm not sure if I should do what we discussed (make them not take any environment variables) or what was written in the RFC (take TASKCLUSTER_CLIENT_ID, etc., but not TASKCLUSTER_ROOT_URL). But I want to move on with the rest of #128, so I think it's best to just defer this particular question to a new RFC (which I will have up shortly).
This introduced a breaking change, and was not widely circulated among users during the RFC discussion process. Since it is largely orthogonal to this RFC, let's move it to another, fresh RFC for discussion.
In particular, as I consider beginning work on modifying clients, I'm not sure if I should do what we discussed (make them not take any environment variables) or what was written in the RFC (take TASKCLUSTER_CLIENT_ID, etc., but not TASKCLUSTER_ROOT_URL). But I want to move on with the rest of #128, so I think it's best to just defer this particular question to a new RFC (which I will have up shortly).