Hi Jörg, As you can imagine I disagree as users might have used the statement already to delete service users and depend on that behavior.
Replacing the commands by new variations with refined behavior sounds to me like a fair compromise. We could even deprecate the old syntax and spawn a warning that usage of those commands is discouraged due to being not descriptive enough of their impact. My 2 cents Dominik Jörg Hoh <jhoh...@googlemail.com.invalid> schrieb am Mi. 3. Okt. 2018 um 13:24: > Hi, > > Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 07:46 Uhr schrieb Karl Pauls <karlpa...@gmail.com > >: > > > Can’t we stay BC and just introduce a new command that has the new > behavior > > and keep the old one as is? > > > > Something like: > > > > DELETE REAL USER > > > > or similar would be consistent with the service user delete at least. > > > > So you would add some additional commands to the language, which finally do > what the original version promised to do? > > * DELETE USER foo -> removes both real and service users (as today) > * DELETE SERVICE USER foo -> removes both real and service users (as today) > * DELETE REAL USER foo -> would delete only a real user? > * DELETE REAL SERVICE USER foo -> would delete only a service user? > > Looks absurd to me. I agree the backward-compatibility is highly important, > but here it prevents to fix bugs. Also I haven't found any documentation > which clearly explains the operations in detail, so I had to guess from the > repoinit examples what the operations are supposed to do. So the current > implementation does not contradict the documentation or specification > because there is none. But it contradicts the expectation I got from > reading the command. If there is a "DELETE USER" and a "DELETE SERVICE > USER" command, there must be different implementation behind it (otherwise > there would be only 1 command), and the obvious difference is the the > "DELETE SERVICE USER" deletes a service user. > > I would also assume that any user of repoinit, who started based on the > existing documentation has the impression as I have and used the commands > in the same way; but I would question even that, because then this flaw in > the implementation would have been found much earlier. > > So my proposal is to fix the bug, change the implementation in the > incompatible way (maybe add some log messages for the cases where the old > implementation would done the wrong thing) and document it properly. And > that's it. > > > -- > Cheers, > Jörg Hoh, > > http://cqdump.wordpress.com > Twitter: @joerghoh >
