Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On 21.9.2015 15:25, Gabe Alford wrote: Sorry. I had fixed another mistake and had not read your comment carefully. Updated patch attached. Gabe On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Jan Cholasta mailto:jchol...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 15.9.2015 14:42, Gabe Alford wrote: Yup. You are ri

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Sorry. I had fixed another mistake and had not read your comment carefully. Updated patch attached. Gabe On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > On 15.9.2015 14:42, Gabe Alford wrote: > >> Yup. You are right. It was a mistake. Updated patch attached. >> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 a

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On 15.9.2015 14:42, Gabe Alford wrote: Yup. You are right. It was a mistake. Updated patch attached. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Jan Cholasta mailto:jchol...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 14.9.2015 14:58, Gabe Alford wrote: Sounds good to me. Updated patch attached. On Mon,

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Yup. You are right. It was a mistake. Updated patch attached. On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > On 14.9.2015 14:58, Gabe Alford wrote: > >> Sounds good to me. Updated patch attached. >> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Petr Spacek > > wrote: >>

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On 14.9.2015 14:58, Gabe Alford wrote: Sounds good to me. Updated patch attached. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Petr Spacek mailto:pspa...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 14.9.2015 07:23, Jan Cholasta wrote: > IMO it does, because saying just "-1 is default" is not entirely correct and >

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Sounds good to me. Updated patch attached. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Petr Spacek wrote: > On 14.9.2015 07:23, Jan Cholasta wrote: > > IMO it does, because saying just "-1 is default" is not entirely correct > and > > "0 is default" would be confusing, as you pointed out. You might say "0

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On 14.9.2015 07:23, Jan Cholasta wrote: > IMO it does, because saying just "-1 is default" is not entirely correct and > "0 is default" would be confusing, as you pointed out. You might say "0 or -1 > is unlimited" if you think it's clearer. my +1 to "0 or -1 is unlimited" variant Petr^2 Spacek

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

IMO it does, because saying just "-1 is default" is not entirely correct and "0 is default" would be confusing, as you pointed out. You might say "0 or -1 is unlimited" if you think it's clearer. On 10.9.2015 18:39, Gabe Alford wrote: Oops.. replied without the list. Reason I said -1 is becau

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Oops.. replied without the list. Reason I said -1 is because users might be confused if they enter `ipa config-mod --searchtimelimit=0`, and both `ipa user-show` and the webui show -1 instead of 0. I wonder if -1 makes more sense in that regard? Thoughts? Does "<= 0 is unlimited" make more sense?

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

I'm not sure about that, I think it should still say 0, because that's what we want to use as the unlimited value. If you insist on including -1 in the docs, maybe we can say "<= 0 is unlimited"? On 10.9.2015 16:08, Gabe Alford wrote: Makes sense. I also changed the doc string to reflect -1 as

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Makes sense. I also changed the doc string to reflect -1 as well. Updated patch attached. Thanks, Gabe On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > On 4.9.2015 14:43, Gabe Alford wrote: > >> Bump for review. >> >> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gabe Alford >

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On 4.9.2015 14:43, Gabe Alford wrote: Bump for review. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gabe Alford mailto:redhatri...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Jan Cholasta mailto:jchol...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 6.8.2015 21:43, Gabe Alford wrote: Hello,

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Bump for review. On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Gabe Alford wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >> On 6.8.2015 21:43, Gabe Alford wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Updated patch attached. >>> >>> - Time limit is -1 for unlimited. I found this >>> https://www.redhat.com/

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > On 6.8.2015 21:43, Gabe Alford wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Updated patch attached. >> >> - Time limit is -1 for unlimited. I found this >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2011-January/msg00330.html >> in reference to keeping the ti

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On 6.8.2015 21:43, Gabe Alford wrote: Hello, Updated patch attached. - Time limit is -1 for unlimited. I found this https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2011-January/msg00330.html in reference to keeping the time limit as -1 for unlimited. This patch does two conflicting things: it c

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Hello, Updated patch attached. - Time limit is -1 for unlimited. I found this https://www.redhat.com/archives/freeipa-devel/2011-January/msg00330.html in reference to keeping the time limit as -1 for unlimited. Sure enough, testing time limit at 0 did not work for unlimited as well as appeared to

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Dne 31.7.2015 v 17:08 Gabe Alford napsal(a): Updated patch attached. Thanks, Gabe On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Gabe Alford mailto:redhatri...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Jan Cholasta mailto:jchol...@redhat.com>> wrote: Dne 30.7.2015 v 09:23 Jan Cholast

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Updated patch attached. Thanks, Gabe On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Gabe Alford wrote: > On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > >> Dne 30.7.2015 v 09:23 Jan Cholasta napsal(a): >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Dne 29.7.2015 v 17:23 Gabe Alford napsal(a): >>> Hello, Fix for

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote: > Dne 30.7.2015 v 09:23 Jan Cholasta napsal(a): > >> Hi, >> >> Dne 29.7.2015 v 17:23 Gabe Alford napsal(a): >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Fix for https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4023 >>> >> >> Actually, 0 means unlimited for size limit, see >>

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Dne 30.7.2015 v 09:23 Jan Cholasta napsal(a): Hi, Dne 29.7.2015 v 17:23 Gabe Alford napsal(a): Hello, Fix for https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4023 Actually, 0 means unlimited for size limit, see . After rea

Re: [Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Hi, Dne 29.7.2015 v 17:23 Gabe Alford napsal(a): Hello, Fix for https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4023 Actually, 0 means unlimited for size limit, see . Honza -- Jan Cholasta -- Manage your subscription for

[Freeipa-devel] [PATH 0053] Inconsistency between ipasearchrecordslimit and --sizelimit

Hello, Fix for https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/4023 Thanks, Gabe From cba4b0d90f65be7734a977cb84f96f378e1c91d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gabe Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 09:04:32 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Standardize minvalue for ipasearchrecordlimit and sizelimit for unlimited option ht