-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12-09-17 04:35 PM, Deryck Hodge wrote: > I think the main argument against using information_type is that > it supports values that don't apply for Products. I understand > that point, but we can limit the values from information_type > directly and still use information_type without all the headache of > adding yet another enum that really is just like information_type > with some values removed.
Specification.infomation_type also does not support the full range of information_types. It is limited to PUBLIC, PROPRIETARY and EMBARGOED, the same as Product.information_type would be. Aaron -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlBYdgAACgkQ0F+nu1YWqI0bIQCaAu7Kajl+ePmC3oJqZBlSEugX mIsAnRUo1E9EJSqWh0rgeAL86uCtX2oX =QyTB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
