Thanks, John. I'm trying to better familiarize myself with the juju-core code base. Is this an area that could use refactoring, or do you think a refactor for terminology consistency would lead to confusion in the sense that machines are actually being "destroyed" even though the command the user runs is a "remove" command?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 9:08 PM, John Meinel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
