> From: "Randy Barlow"
> To: pulp-list@redhat.com
> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 4:48:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change
> question)?
>
> On 09/23/2014 03:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> > You could have t
On 09/23/2014 03:00 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> You could have the web handler copy the attribute "worker_name" to "queue",
> so the API returns both. Then mark "queue" as deprecated in the
> documentation. That would let us comfortably release this as part of a 2.6 or
> 3.0.
This is a fantast
:06:46 PM
Subject: [Pulp-list] Is master going to be 2.6 or 3.0 (an API change
question)?
I have a PR that introduces a small API change [0]. It renames a Task Report
attribute from 'queue' to 'worker_name'. It's a small change in the API that no
one should care
I have a PR that introduces a small API change [0]. It renames a Task Report
attribute from 'queue' to 'worker_name'. It's a small change in the API that no
one should care about because there are no use cases I can think of that
involve using the info from this field. I propose that it be inclu
