W dniu pią, 05.01.2018 o godzinie 23∶09 +0100, użytkownik Kristian
Fiskerstrand napisał:
> On 01/05/2018 10:28 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> > On 2018-01-05 15:16, William Hubbs wrote:
> > > If we have a default expiration, it should be one year after the date
> > > posted to go along with our current policy of not supporting things that
> > > are older than a year.
> > > 
> > > William
> > 
> > I thought it was three years.
> > 
> > At any rate, I think a year is too short.
> > 
> > How about 18 months?
> > 
> I might sound like a broken CD here, but why define the expiration as
> part of the news format instead of specifying it in the package manager
> as a user defined variable? Various use cases requires different
> treatment, so leaving it up to user seems more relevant to me, and we
> could allow information to be presented as part of stages to give a hint
> for what dates to look for?

To be honest, I kinda agree with Kristian here. I feel like this header
isn't going to work well.

While the idea may initially sound good, I'm afraid we'll have the usual
developer split here: some developers will set very long times, some
will set very short times, some will not care and just copy some random
value (default, the value from some other news item). In the end, users
will end up seeing very old news items from dev X, while newer items
from dev Y will disappear.

So yes, I think having a single predefined time is better,
for consistency at least. And allowing user to adjust that time based
on his own is certainly better than making it only dev-settable.

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Reply via email to