[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: gnats/gnats

From: Yngve Svendsen
Subject: Re: gnats/gnats
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 11:52:51 +0100

At 15:10 30.05.2002 -0700, Mel Hatzis wrote:
Lars Henriksen wrote:
I made the fix after reading the documentation (Keeping Track,
section 4.2) that explicitly excludes your setup:
  For a database that is located across a network, but which should be
  accessible from this host, the entry for the database should look like
  The first two fields are the same as for local databases, the third
  field is empty (notice the two adjacent `:' symbols, indicating an
  empty field), the fourth field is the hostname of the remote GNATS
  server, and the fifth field is the port number that the remote GNATS is
  running on.
Now, this may be all wrong (and no, I haven't checked the code), but

I agree that the 'fix' to mkdb is according to the documentation, but
I would encourage you to reconsider the documented behaviour.
Supporting two modes is a duplication of effort that gives rise to a
number of the 'arch enemies' of good software engineering....inconsistency,
ambiguity and unnecessary complexity. And in this case, I hold that
it's totally unnecessary.

I agree 100% that we should try to phase out the local mode and have everything go through gnatsd. I don't think anyone would consider installing a daemon-less GNATS 4 server. I think deprecating local mode should be a high priority for 4.1, by adjusting the documentation and removing options from the tools.

In the meantime, though, I think the fix Lars made should be OK, since the manual (and the recently updated man page) clearly states that the path field should be empty for databases that are to be accessed through gnatsd. Anyway, I'll close PR384 now, since the patch has been committed.

- Yngve

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]