Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Hash: SHA1

On 11/22/2010 10:54 PM, Dmitri Pal wrote:

During the conversation with Ben and Kyle today over the calendar screen
two things came up:
1) Time zone
2) Duration

Time zone


Time zone should always be entered relative to the server, not the user
entering it. This should be clearly identified in the UI. Then there's
no ambiguity upon reading it back out, as it is ALWAYS relative to the

I don't want to throw a wrench in, but what if you have multiple replicas in various distant locations, WHICH server is the time relative to?



New grammar allows DDHHMM for the duration. UI proposes to limit the
duration to less than 24 hours since more than 24 hour windows can start
overlapping and thus allowing to enter duration days was confusing to
the users who tried the UI.  We need to reconcile this a bit between
what can be stored and what can be displayed. IMO it makes sense to
allow windows more than 24 hours (regular service window over weekend
for example). But on the other hand I see how having a separate field
for number of duration days in the UI might be confusing. I would vote
for not having days in the UI at all but allowing any numeric value to
be entered into the hours field. This however rises a question whether
we want to have the duration be in DDHHMM format in grammar or in just
NMM format where N is any numeric value that represents unlimited number
of hours. Thoughts?

I agree that we don't want to have>  24 hours in the UI.

DDHHMM is easier to parse, and I can't come up with an example where a
window of longer than 99 days makes sense. Instead, it should be a
recurring event.

- --
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761

Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to