This is a case where we had 'destroy-machine' as an operation in 1.x but changed the name for 2.0 to help with consistency, but that change didn't propagate throughout the code base.
John =:-> On Jun 22, 2016 2:40 AM, "James Beedy" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey whats up guys? - Will there be a 'destroy-machine' command in the > future? > > On that, do you think it would it be wise, or confusing to refactor > references to 'DestroyMachine' or 'DestroyedMachines' or whatever > variation of 'destroy machine' to a similar variation of 'remove machine'? > > I'm thinking references in the code base to variations of 'destroy > machine' could be refactored to a similar variation of 'remove machine' for > consistency/readability/understandability ..... I guess I'm a bit confused > because 'destroying' a machine operations are carried out by the code, > but 'destroying' a machine is not a user facing op. What I'm getting at (I > think) is that there seems to be an unclear distinction on whether the > references to 'destroying' a machine in the codebase should be 'removing' > a machine - also function and class names including references to > 'destroying' a machine? > > > ~James > > > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >
-- Juju-dev mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
