RFC Feature Planning: Deployment Activity History

Tzu-Mainn Chen tzumainn at redhat.com
Fri Apr 20 13:11:40 UTC 2012


Ah, thanks for pointing that out!  I'll make sure it still works.

Mainn

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Provazník" <jprovazn at redhat.com>
> To: "Tzu-Mainn Chen" <tzumainn at redhat.com>
> Cc: aeolus-devel at lists.fedorahosted.org
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 4:17:07 AM
> Subject: Re: RFC Feature Planning: Deployment Activity History
> 
> On 03/30/2012 05:59 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
> > https://www.aeolusproject.org/redmine/projects/aeolus/wiki/Allow_Conductor_to_keep_a_history_of_deployment_activity
> >
> >  The document talks about two possible approaches to keeping
> > deployment activity; one is to use an archive table, and another is
> > to use a soft_delete flag.  I'd be interested in hearing people's
> > thoughts on both.
> >
> > Oh, and the document also talks about potentially using dbomatic
> > for
> > periodic history purges.  I know there's been some discussion
> > around
> > dbomatic, so if someone had an opinion about that as well. . .
> >
> >
> > Mainn
> 
> Hi Mainn, one nit which wasn't probably mentioned (or I missed it) is
> potential problem with unique keys:
> - primary keys - I think we use everywhere 'id' so it shouldn't be
> problem (as long as we don't use for example 'name' as primary key)
> - 'validates_uniqueness_of' for all models which use soft deletion
> will
> have to be updated (acts_as_paranoid doesn't re-implement this
> method)
> 
> Jan
> 



More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list