On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Jeff Ortel <[email protected]> wrote:
> The > "result" report /could/ provide an indicator of success and a > summary/detail of work completed. These two > things seem completely different. I'm not advocating for a "result", just > pointing out the differences. > Exactly. If tasks had a "result" field, it should contain references to whatever the task produced. If we start tracking things like publications and repo versions, then it could make sense for the task to contain a result field with an appropriate reference to the object(s) it created. -- Michael Hrivnak Principal Software Engineer, RHCE Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
