On 01/24/2014 05:23 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 17:17 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 01/24/2014 04:57 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 16:48 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> Technically we could alias the name so the attribute can be called
>>> either way, but that is not necessarily a good option either.
>> If breaking master is unacceptable, we can use the old name instead. 
>> ipaPermIncludedAttr is more consistent but ipaPermAllowedAttr isn't 
>> downright wrong.
> Ok, let's hear other opinions, I see a lot f value in consistent naming,
> and not breaking a developer build is not that strong of a reason to
> have substandard naming I guess. What do others think ?
> Simo.

Hmm, I obviously see things differently here. I would rather "break" the master
and let developers running on the git version to reinstall the servers
(including myself) than to have to live with suboptimal attribute name for ever
or by adding unnecessary cruft to the code...


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to