On 02/28/2018 01:15 PM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Is it because you want to avoid that the user picks an automatic job for > completing the mixed transaction?
I wanted to avoid the case that a job without the manual property would be stuck "pending" -- which I have defined to mean that it is waiting on an authorization from the user -- which isn't really true: it's waiting on its peers in the transaction to receive that authorization. It would indeed be simpler to just let them stick around in PENDING like their peers, but it felt like a hacky way to allow mixed-mode transactions -- like they had been promoted for just a subset of their lifetime. So, mostly it was a semantic decision and not a functional one based on what I considered "WAITING" to mean vs "PENDING". If the definitions (and documentation) are adjusted it can be changed for the simpler layout if it seems just as good from the API perspective. (It's certainly better implementationally, as you say.) --js