Am Di., 16. Okt. 2018 um 10:57 Uhr schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@apache.org>:
>
>
> WDYT?
>
+1
I will update the patches at SLING-7960.
--
Cheers,
Jörg Hoh,
http://cqdump.wordpress.com
Twitter: @joerghoh
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM Jörg Hoh
> wrote:
> > ...ok, so do we continue here?...
>
> I suggest mostly going with Karl's idea but fixing one obvious bug:
>
> 1) Introduce a new DELETE REAL USER command that only deletes
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 7:47 PM Jörg Hoh wrote:
> ...ok, so do we continue here?...
I suggest mostly going with Karl's idea but fixing one obvious bug:
1) Introduce a new DELETE REAL USER command that only deletes real users.
2) Keep DELETE USER as is, deleting both types of users.
Hi,
ok, so do we continue here?
1) Do we version the language and add a "requires version X" statement to
the language and into scripts? I saw objections to it, although I would
consider this the only way how ever could evolve commands while still being
somehow backwards compatible.
2) Extend
I'm with Jörg, the old syntax was fine. The bad behavior seems to be just
a bug to me that should just be fixed. Adding more complex choices seems
unnecessary.
Regards,
Eric
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018, 9:58 AM Dominik Süß wrote:
> Hi Jörg,
>
> As you can imagine I disagree as users might have used
Hi Jörg,
As you can imagine I disagree as users might have used the statement
already to delete service users and depend on that behavior.
Replacing the commands by new variations with refined behavior sounds to me
like a fair compromise. We could even deprecate the old syntax and spawn a
Hi,
Am Di., 2. Okt. 2018 um 07:46 Uhr schrieb Karl Pauls :
> Can’t we stay BC and just introduce a new command that has the new behavior
> and keep the old one as is?
>
> Something like:
>
> DELETE REAL USER
>
> or similar would be consistent with the service user delete at least.
>
So you
+1 - didn't think of STRICT but yeah, that makes sense to me :-)
regards,
Karl
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:06 AM Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:46 AM Karl Pauls wrote:
> > Can’t we stay BC and just introduce a new command that has the new behavior
> > and keep
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 7:46 AM Karl Pauls wrote:
> Can’t we stay BC and just introduce a new command that has the new behavior
> and keep the old one as is?...
Great idea, this is much simpler to implement and manage indeed, at
the cost of making the language slightly more complicated.
I
Can’t we stay BC and just introduce a new command that has the new behavior
and keep the old one as is?
Something like:
DELETE REAL USER
or similar would be consistent with the service user delete at least.
It seems like a lot of hazel down the line to break the language and
introduce a
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have a concrete case in SLING-7960 where a repoinit bug needs
> fixing in a way that won't be fully compatible with the existing
> implementation.
> The difference is minor but still means it's a good time to define
> how we'll handle language evolutions.
>
Hi,
We have a concrete case in SLING-7960 where a repoinit bug needs
fixing in a way that won't be fully compatible with the existing
implementation.
The difference is minor but still means it's a good time to define how
we'll handle language evolutions.
The problem is that the DELETE USER
12 matches
Mail list logo
