On 15.9.2015 14:42, Gabe Alford wrote:
Yup. You are right. It was a mistake. Updated patch attached.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Jan Cholasta <jchol...@redhat.com
On 14.9.2015 14:58, Gabe Alford wrote:
Sounds good to me. Updated patch attached.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Petr Spacek <pspa...@redhat.com
<mailto:pspa...@redhat.com <mailto:pspa...@redhat.com>>> wrote:
On 14.9.2015 07:23, Jan Cholasta wrote:
> IMO it does, because saying just "-1 is default" is not
entirely correct and
> "0 is default" would be confusing, as you pointed out.
You might say "0 or -1
> is unlimited" if you think it's clearer.
my +1 to "0 or -1 is unlimited" variant
> On 10.9.2015 18:39, Gabe Alford wrote:
>> Oops.. replied without the list.
>> Reason I said -1 is because users might be confused if they
>> config-mod --searchtimelimit=0`, and both `ipa
>> show -1 instead of 0. I wonder if -1 makes more sense
>> Thoughts? Does "<= 0 is unlimited" make more sense?
The doc for ipasearchtimelimit and ipasearchrecordslimit says "-1 is
unlimited", but both 0 and -1 is unlimited for them, and the doc for
timelimit and sizelimit says "-1 or 0 is unlimited", but only 0 is
unlimited for them. Looks like a mistake.
This hasn't changed since the previous patch and is still wrong, as -1
is not supported here:
- doc=_('Time limit of search in seconds'),
+ doc=_('Time limit of search in seconds (-1 or 0 is
- doc=_('Maximum number of entries returned'),
+ doc=_('Maximum number of entries returned (-1 or 0 is
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code