Do you think that then we should mark it as 'deprecate'? so it throws a
warning when called until we finally decide to drop it off in a future
cycle?
El 11/12/15 a las 03:52, GHANSHYAM MANN escribió:
> Hi,
>
> Yes, That's very valid point about there might be some real users or in
> future.
>
> S
Hi,
Yes, That's very valid point about there might be some real users or in future.
So Instead of deleting it, how about maintaining it. Only issue here
was gate did not
capture the issues when introduced in his tool.
But we can cover that using Unit tests and if really necessary we can
add exper
Hi All,
comments inline
El 10/12/15 a las 17:17, Matthew Treinish escribió:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:15:06AM +0100, Daniel Mellado wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> In today's QA meeting we were discussing about dropping Javelin off
>> tempest if it's not being used anymore in grenade, as sdague pointe
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:15:06AM +0100, Daniel Mellado wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In today's QA meeting we were discussing about dropping Javelin off
> tempest if it's not being used anymore in grenade, as sdague pointed
> out. We were thinking about this as a part of the work for [1], where we
> hit
On Thu, 10 Dec 2015, Daniel Mellado wrote:
Before doing so, we'd like to get some feedback about out planned move,
so if you have any questions, comments or feedback, please reply to this
thread.
+1
I think this is the right way to go. I put a lot of work into
javelin related stuff a bit more
Hi All,
In today's QA meeting we were discussing about dropping Javelin off
tempest if it's not being used anymore in grenade, as sdague pointed
out. We were thinking about this as a part of the work for [1], where we
hit issue on Javelin script testing where gate did not detect the
service client
