On 2018-08-30 02:06, John Snow wrote:
>
>
> On 08/27/2018 05:30 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
>> On 2018-08-24 00:08, John Snow wrote:
>>> Presently we codify the entry point for a job as the "start" callback,
>>> but a more apt name would be "run" to clarify the idea that when this
>>> function returns
On 08/27/2018 05:30 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 2018-08-24 00:08, John Snow wrote:
>> Presently we codify the entry point for a job as the "start" callback,
>> but a more apt name would be "run" to clarify the idea that when this
>> function returns we consider the job to have "finished," except
On 2018-08-24 00:08, John Snow wrote:
> Presently we codify the entry point for a job as the "start" callback,
> but a more apt name would be "run" to clarify the idea that when this
> function returns we consider the job to have "finished," except for
> any cleanup which occurs in separate
Presently we codify the entry point for a job as the "start" callback,
but a more apt name would be "run" to clarify the idea that when this
function returns we consider the job to have "finished," except for
any cleanup which occurs in separate callbacks later.
As part of this clarification,
