IGNORED is a universal setting that means ... "This policy is ignored."
It can be applied to any policy.
Changing IGNORED to ALWAYS is makes no sense for the other policies.
Releases
(old) IGNORED, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, DISABLED
(new) ALWAYS, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, DISABLED
Snapshots
(old) IGNORED, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, DISABLED
(new) ALWAYS, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, DISABLED
Cache-Failures
(old) IGNORED, CACHED
(new) ALWAYS, CACHED
Checksum
(old) IGNORED, FIX, FAIL
(new) ALWAYS, FIX, FAIL
Using the logic that we should use wording that applies the artifact,
(which itself is misleading, as these affect metadata too), then the
DISABLED option should be changed too.
I have a feeling that we are confusing the meanings of IGNORED and DISABLED.
What about using SKIP in place of IGNORED?
What about using REJECT in place of DISABLED?
So it would become ....
Releases
(old) IGNORED, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, DISABLED
(proposed) SKIP, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, REJECT
Snapshots
(old) IGNORED, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, DISABLED
(new) SKIP, ONCE, HOURLY, DAILY, REJECT
Cache-Failures
(old) IGNORED, CACHED
(new) SKIP, CACHED
Checksum
(old) IGNORED, FIX, FAIL
(new) SKIP, FIX, FAIL
WDYT?
- Joakim
Brett Porter wrote:
I'd say 2)
please just change "ignored" to a value that interacts with the
artifact (eg, always) instead of the policy, since that's what all the
other values do.
On 23/10/2007, at 1:17 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
There seems to be some confusion on the settings, defaults values,
meanings, purpose, etc...
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-549
* MRM-549 : proxy connectors: no "always" option for releases and
snapshots policies
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRM-547
* MRM-547 : proxy connectors: cache failures options are confusing
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/Archiva+Proxy+Policies
I'd like to hear from you about what is bad about the current settings?
What is good about the current settings?
Some options on how to correct this?
(my 2 bits)
1) Create a sidebar on the proxy connector screen detailing the
meaning of the policy settings.
2) Change the policy setting values to make more sense to the
largest body of individuals.
I'd like to get these closed out, it'll be a simple fix, but the
decision needs discussion first.
--
- Joakim Erdfelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/
