incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Koželj <pe...@digiverse.si>
Subject Re: Multi product enhancements
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:35:06 GMT
Agree, if we are doing product namespace, we should do it properly :)

On 15 November 2012 16:24, Gary Martin <gary.martin@wandisco.com> wrote:

> On 15/11/12 11:48, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 14.11.2012 12:36, Gary Martin wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/11/12 08:38, Olemis Lang wrote:
>>>
>>>> fwiw ... I'm -1 about adding it soon ... maybe later
>>>>
>>> At the moment I am of the opinion that it is something we need to sort
>>> out relatively quickly so that fewer people feel any pain of a
>>> transition.
>>>
>> I'll presume to barge in with the opinion that this is not something you
>> can add "maybe later" in a backward-compatible way, unless you plan to
>> renumber all tickets in existing databases ... which would certainly get
>> Bloodhound mentioned on /. but not in a nice way. :)
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>
> Absolutely. For backwards compatibility we could maintain any gaps in the
> numbering but I don't think that is particularly satisfying solution. There
> appear to be a number of good reasons to allow for continuous numbering
> within a product once you take potential imports into account. Has anyone
> got any compelling arguments for why we should not take this approach?
>
> Cheers,
>     Gary
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message