On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 09:07:13AM -0400, Jason Dobies wrote: >> Before we open up this can of worms again look at this bug: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459827 (sorry private bug) >> >> jesus > > "Increasing the length of the column probably isn't the right solution. " > > Is there more to it than that (referring to the can of worms comment, > I'm guessing there was a non-documented debate)? I'm not seeing a real > reason why increasing the name to match the label size is a bad idea. > This has come up twice in BZs now and I just saw it on the satellite > mailing list as well.
I guess the debate was how big is big enough? At what point do we stop? If we make it 256 and we get to cloning a channel that creates a name of 257 what then? We're back in the same place we started? The problem was found because we (Spacewalk) were autogenerating an invalid name that was larger than the db column. So we can make it 256 and still have the same problem. How do we deal with the case where the auto generated name is longer than the allotted space? message to the user that it is too long? truncate? prompt for the name ALWAYS? I'm not really opposed to increasing it, I'm more opposed to increasing the column and simply postponing the problem. -- jesus m. rodriguez | jes...@redhat.com sr. software engineer | irc: zeus rhn satellite & spacewalk | 919.754.4413 (w) rhce # 805008586930012 | 919.623.0080 (c) +-------------------------------------------+ | "Those who cannot learn from history | | are doomed to repeat it." | | -- George Santayana | +-------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ Spacewalk-devel mailing list Spacewalk-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
