Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi, As I previously mentioned, isn't this more like a behavior of "refactor-X" against "X" where X can be rename/edit etc. And the re factoring feature will be a ideal new feature that will enhance the user experience. On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote: > Hi Janaka, >

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi Janaka, On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Janaka Ranabahu wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote: > >> Hi Janaka, >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Janaka Ranabahu wrote: >> >>> Hi Subash, >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Subash Chatura

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Eranda Sooriyabandara wrote: > Hi Janaka, > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Janaka Ranabahu wrote: > >> Hi Subash, >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Subash Chaturanga wrote: >> >>> HI Janaka, >>> In a Prod or non Prod env ithere can be a use case tha

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi Janaka, On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Janaka Ranabahu wrote: > Hi Subash, > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Subash Chaturanga wrote: > >> HI Janaka, >> In a Prod or non Prod env ithere can be a use case that at a given point >> of time, governance master needs to refactor the LC con

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi Guys, Any thoughts on this topic? Thanks, Janaka On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Janaka Ranabahu wrote: > Hi Subash, > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Subash Chaturanga wrote: > >> HI Janaka, >> In a Prod or non Prod env ithere can be a use case that at a given point >> of time, gov

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi Subash, On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Subash Chaturanga wrote: > HI Janaka, > In a Prod or non Prod env ithere can be a use case that at a given point > of time, governance master needs to refactor the LC config (some config > change as Ajith mentioned) and reflect the changes on all ass

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

HI Janaka, In a Prod or non Prod env ithere can be a use case that at a given point of time, governance master needs to refactor the LC config (some config change as Ajith mentioned) and reflect the changes on all associated 100s of services. So I believe this feature is a useful one (may be in a

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi Ajith, Please see my concerns inline. On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Ajith Vitharana wrote: > Hi Janaka, > > First *"**ServiceLifeCycle is already in use and your changes may affect > existing usage" * is sufficient warning. Because we can't add > lengthy descriptions in small UI box. > P

Re: [Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi Janaka, First *"**ServiceLifeCycle is already in use and your changes may affect existing usage" * is sufficient warning. Because we can't add lengthy descriptions in small UI box. Practically, do we change the *LC state id* having large number of artifacts in a production system ?. Renaming t

[Architecture] [G-Reg] What is the purpose of allowing users to modify a lifecycle that is already in use

Hi, I have noticed that we allow users to modify a lifecycle that is already assigned to resources. Did we do a complete analysis of the situations that could come by allowing this behavior? I have noticed the following inconsistent behavior due to this. When saving the lifecycle configuration,