I agree that fixing a bug by introducing several new ones is not a good idea, especially if these are worse than the original problem.
However, I disagree that not fixing this bug is the way to go. Earlier on, adding an object expiry to the container schema was deemed too complex. These new findings might justify that approach. Once object expiry is known at the container level, a container delete would simply delete its expired objects. I think this should be doable, even if it isn't simple. On 12/07/2012 07:33 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote: > Actually, this raises an interesting point. Without this bugfix, a > container listing shows expired objects, enabling users to delete their > containers even if the object expirer is running slowly (after deleting > their expired objects, of course). > > With a fix for this bug, users would be saddled with empty-looking, > undeletable containers. > > Perhaps we should choose not to fix this bug, as the fix may add more > problems than it removes. > > Thoughts? > -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1069849 Title: Containers show expired objects To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/swift/+bug/1069849/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
