jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Conflict handling in Oak
Date Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:49:08 GMT

Just remember that "MAY" is difficult to handle by developers: Can I depend on it or not ?
What if the "MAY" feature does not exist ? What if I develop on an implementation providing
the "MAY" feature and then running on an implementation not providing the "MAY" feature ?

In essence, a "MAY" feature basically must be considered as non-existing :-(

All in all, please don't use "MAY". Thanks from a developer ;-)


Am 18.12.2012 um 09:37 schrieb Marcel Reutegger:

> Hi,
>> To address 1) I suggest we define a set of clear cut cases where any
>> Microkernel implementations MUST merge. For the other cases I'm not sure
>> whether we should make them MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT or MAY merge.
> I agree and I think three cases are sufficient. MUST, MUST NOT and MAY.
> MUST is for conflicts we know are easy and straight forward to resolve.
> MUST NOT is for conflicts that are known to be problematic because there's
> no clean resolution strategy.
> MAY is for conflicts that have a defined resolution but we think happen
> rarely and is not worth implementing.
> I don't see how SHOULD NOT is useful in this context.
> regards
> marcel

View raw message