On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 08:34 +0100, Julian Edwards wrote: > On Monday 23 August 2010 21:44:01 Guilherme Salgado wrote: > > And that means we don't need to accept binary-only uploads on the > > security policy either, right? > > The security policy is redundant, we can remove it entirely.
Cool; I'll do that. > > > 'anything': the name says it all, but it's used just for tests and > > none of our tests do mixed uploads anymore. > > There's also 'absolutely-anything'. Right; I omitted it because it was just a variant of 'anything' which also accepts unsigned changes. > > > We could replace, then, the 3 attributes with a single enum and simplify > > things a bit, but I'm not sure whether or not we'll want policies > > accepting mixed uploads to accept source-only or binary-only uploads (in > > which case the enum wouldn't make much sense, I think). What do you guys > > think? > > I think it can be reduced to a bool! But a 2-state enum is more future proof. Right, but my concern is that we might need a policy that accepts both mixed uploads and source-only (or binary-only) uploads. In that case we'd need a 3rd and maybe a 4th state (e.g. MIXED_AND_SOURCEFUL), but maybe that's still better than the 3 different variables we have now? -- Guilherme Salgado <https://launchpad.net/~salgado>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
