On 01/27/2014 09:50 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 01/27/2014 09:17 AM, Petr Spacek wrote:
>> On 27.1.2014 08:07, Martin Kosek wrote:
>>> 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...
> I think you got lost in the "not"s. You and Simo agree.

Ah, I see - you are right (indeed to many nots).


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to