On 11-10-17 12:22 AM, Jeroen Vermeulen wrote:
> On 2011-10-13 15:06, Robert Collins wrote:
>
>> Curtis script expunges dangling team join requests; expiring them
>> would involve notifications ('sorry your request was not replied to'),
>> and that would be bogus if e.g. the person had been deleted (or
>> alternatively merged into someone in the team). Neither case can
>> happen if the person merge bug is fixed.
>
> It was stupid of me to ignore notifications. But is this really a case
> of "membership request expiry is harder with the broken data still in
> place," or is it actually "notifying users of anything related to
> membership requests is harder with the broken data still in place"?
>
> ISTM the notification code needs to be robust against this sort of thing
> as a matter of necessity. Wasn't similar robustness built in back when
> we realized that users don't always have preferred email addresses?This is an affirmation that I've seen mentioned a couple of time recently, but I cannot assert his truth value. In my understanding, this is still a myth. Launchpad users always have a preferred email address. Teams might not have one, as person records that we imported but nobody "activated". But as soon as a user "logs in" Launchpad, and thus become a user, they have a preferred address. If that's not the case, please explain how this invariant can now be broken. -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
