Im leaning towards Engineer 1 and 2 being the same person :-)..
On a more serious note, why isnt there ever a recommendation by BMC Software on what Group IDs would be an ideal User Range.. Off late I have resorted to a fairly large number starting at 500000000 and above for custom development work, and to be on the safer side that BMC would not coincidentally use that I throw a random digit or two in the middle of it so lets say 500010000, and then next group as 500010001 and so on in the same application, 500020000 for another unrelated application and so on.. I know we have the archgid to save us in case BMC ever uses one of our defined group IDs, but it tends to get messy at times when you do that as there is a chance those IDs were used in application data, which will result in a lengthy cleanup process even if you do have utilities to do that.. I guess what Im saying is that it would be nice to get BMC to declare a standard on user range for Group IDs too. Joe _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Mueller, Doug Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 2:03 PM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Ha! Remedy Developer T-Shirts Or maybe, it was just one poor sole who thought that the field ID being 32 bits gives a maxint of about 2 billion so why not give Remedy about ¼ of that space and customers ¾ and then to say that OK, a way to do that is 2^29 since 2^31 is the total, that is about ¼ so let's go with that . .. Doug Mueller From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:arslist@ARSLIST.ORG] On Behalf Of Jason Miller Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 10:05 AM To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG Subject: Re: Ha! Remedy Developer T-Shirts ** So I started to wonder why 536870912 at the beginning. Seems a bit of on odd first ID number. I wonder if it was because that is 512 megabits? Because it is 64 megabytes? There must be some kind of meaning. Engineer 1: Hey, we need a really large number for the first field ID in the customer range Engineer 2: What is 64 megabytes in bits? Engineer 1: 536870912 Engineer 1+2: Yeah, let's use that note: this is a reenactment of how it may have happened. It is possible Engineer 1 and 2 was the same person :) Inline image 1 http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/?input_amount=536%2C870%2C912+ <http://www.matisse.net/bitcalc/?input_amount=536%2C870%2C912+&input_units=b its¬ation=legacy> &input_units=bits¬ation=legacy On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Longwing, Lj <llongw...@usgs.gov> wrote: ** I would hafta say that because that the 'current' first field ID :) On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:06 AM, John J Reiser <john.j.rei...@lmco.com> wrote: Might be showing my (Remedy) age hear but why 536870913 instead of 536870912. (before VUIs) That number will forever be burned into my brain as the first user defined field. ____________________________________________________________________________ ___ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years" _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
<<image001.gif>>
