-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/23/09 4:10 PM, Tuomas Koski wrote: > Hi, > > 2009/4/22 Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 4/22/09 7:50 AM, Robin Collier wrote: >> >>> I fail to see how this is any different then the max_items case. Both >>> serve the exact same purpose but simply use different criteria to >>> determine when to remove older items. If this is outside of the scope >>> of the spec, then why supply the ability to limit at all? By it's >>> current inclusion (by number) it does in fact make it within the scope >>> of the spec. >>> >>> For the record, I am not actually making use of this, but thought it >>> made sense as a feature. >> If anyone else wants item_expire I'd be happy to add it. I can see it >> being useful in some scenarios, and it meets a different need from >> max_items. > > I agree. I would find it useful. +1
Hmm, OK, I will call it item_expire instead of stale_item just in case anyone was depending on that name from the old list discussion... Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkquvAUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwcOQCfWi95BOzBotblDiUPMAOQKkMt XycAnjX2DYzSpRSP3t92ZxvUIZZREEVR =3rqt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
