Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat(src/os.ml,-src/strings.ml): Introduce tempkeepdays parameter to config after how many days should be temporary .unison*.tmp files deleted #1081

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

LubosKolouch
Copy link

No description provided.

…config after how many days should be temporary .unison*.tmp files deleted
@gdt
Copy link
Collaborator

gdt commented Nov 7, 2024

There's surely a backstory about why you think this is necessary, which is perhaps about other problems. Please post on unison-hackers@ about the situation, motivation and analysis about relative benefit vs increasing the already-too-large configurablity.

@tleedjarv
Copy link
Contributor

strings.ml is a generated file and shouldn't be modified directly (it will simply be overwritten anyway).

Adding preferences like this is unfortunately not as simple as that as it would break backwards compatibility with older versions (try it with a server built without this patch).

@acolomb
Copy link

acolomb commented Nov 7, 2024

relative benefit vs increasing the already-too-large configurablity

Since comments like this come up regularly, I'd like to point out that this assessment is subjective. Having options is not bad in itself. If they're well documented and sensibly structured, that's fine. Sure, I don't use 99 % of them at all, but certainly other users may have a need for them, which we'll never hear about. And since the code is already there and tested, we shouldn't be pushing hard to remove parts of it again IMHO. Of course, it's nearly impossible to test a system with a myriad of parameters completely, but we'll need to accept that 100 % test coverage is not feasible, unless we make the whole system much simpler (and thus useless).

Sure, whether this additional parameter is acceptable is to be discussed. But it looks rather simple and logical to me, so why not accept a patch that someone has already put some effort into? Provided it integrates well of course...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants